Scientific realism about spin is easily motivated. But what does it amount to? To answer this question, Chapter 3 contrasts in general terms two epistemological conceptions of realism—truth-content vs. progress realism—before problematizing truth-content realism in the context of quantum physics. After articulating the challenge faced by truth-content realism, the chapter argues that progress realism avoids it, offering a stable middle ground between anti-realism and traditional truth-content realism.
Scientific realism about spin is easily motivated. But what does it amount to? To answer this question, Chapter 3 contrasts in general terms two epistemological conceptions of realism—truth-content vs. progress realism—before problematizing truth-content realism in the context of quantum physics. After articulating the challenge faced by truth-content realism, the chapter argues that progress realism avoids it, offering a stable middle ground between anti-realism and traditional truth-content realism.
Scientific realism has traditionally maintained that our best scientific theories can be regarded as more or less true and as representing the world as it is (more or less). However, one of our very best current theories—quantum mechanics—has famously resisted such a realist construal, threatening to undermine the realist stance altogether. The chapters in this volume carefully examine this tension and the reasons behind it, including the underdetermination generated by the multiplicity of formulations and interpretations of quantum physics, each presenting a different way the world could be. Authors in this volume offer a range of alternative ways forward: some suggest new articulations of realism, limiting our commitments in one way or another; others attempt to articulate a ‘third way’ between traditional forms of realism and antirealism, or are critical of such attempts. Still others argue that quantum theory itself should be reconceptualised, or at least alternative formulations should be considered in the hope of evading the problems faced by realism. And some examine the nature of these issues when moving beyond quantum mechanics to quantum field theory. Taken together they offer an exciting new set of perspectives on one of the most fundamental questions in the philosophy of modern physics: how can one be a realist about quantum theory, and what does this realism amount to?
According to scientific realism, science gives us an approximately true description of what the world is like. But what does it mean? In this chapter, we focus on the ontological and metaphysical aspects of this discussion. That is, we are concerned with the following questions: what there is, according to our best scientific theories? And how are these things that theories say exist? We start from the assumption that a genuine scientific realism must deal with these issues. Taking non-relativistic quantum mechanics as a case study, we discuss some of the challenges currently faced by a genuinely realistic stance. We argue, first, that in the ontological aspect, realists are in the same boat as science, that is, without sufficient epistemic justification to adopt the belief in the entities postulated by a single quantum theory, given that experience (currently) is not able to decide between rival theories; in the metaphysical aspect, realists also encounter problems with theory choice, given the possibility of associating more than one metaphysical theory with the description of the entities postulated by each quantum theory. The same goes for structuralist alternatives, since, even if we accept that scientific theories are committed to the existence of structures, but not objects, we still do not know what structures are, metaphysically. Finally, we move forward in the discussion with the meta-Popperian method, which serves to reduce the metaphysical alternatives associated with the ontological postulates of scientific theories. We may not know what the correct alternative is, but we have been able to progressively check which metaphysical alternatives are incompatible with each scientific theory.
The article examines the controversial relation of scientific realism with quantum mechanics. To this end, two distinct discussions are invoked: the discussion about ‘realism’ in the context of quantum mechanics and the discussion about ‘scientific realism’ in the context of the general philosophy of science. The aim is to distinguish them in order, first, to argue that the former—revolving around ‘local realism’ and the theorems of Bell and Kochen–Specker—unjustifiably identifies realism with features of a particular worldview, and thereby fosters the impression that the failure of ‘local realism’ in quantum experiments constitutes a failure of scientific realism too; and, second, in light of the latter discussion, to claim that scientific realism and quantum mechanics can be compatible—there is ground for dealing with quantum measurement simply as a physical mind-independent interaction. Therefore, a realist approach to the theory is possible despite its notorious measurement problem, even if the issue of its interpretation is still disputed.
The aim of the present paper is to sbo» that anti-realism in science, 1vhich has a1;guab/y become more fashionable in recentyears, contrary to tuha: its proponents assert, cannot make use of quantum mechanics and its impressiue achievements as a frump card in justifying its claims. I will argue that scientific anti-realism far from providing scientific communiry with a progressive methodologicalframeuorle is a restrictive approach wbicb would hamper scientific progress. Focusing on the historical evidence of the 1vqys in subicb quantum mechanics was deueloped, I 1vill further argue that the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics due to Bohr and Heisenberg, among others, iuith its in-built anti-realistic elements provides a damning verdict against the claims of anti-realists. Following a critical assessment of a number of alternative interpretations or the calculus of quantum mechanics, I shall present realistic approaches which provide more effective and frudful conceptualframeu;orks for the advancement of research in the quantum
The interpretation of quantum mechanics remains one of the most challenging problems in the philosophy of science, particularly regarding the relationship between scientific theories and reality. In this section we compare two significant conceptual frameworks that address these challenges: RWR interpretation and the Bild conception of scientific theory structuring. Both approaches offer sophisticated alternatives to traditional realist interpretations while maintaining scientific rigor and explanatory power.
In this presentation, I explore the possibility of combining pluralism and scientific realism in the framework of Putnam’s pragmatic realism (Putnam, 1999; Bernstein, 2005). I illustrate my claim through the analysis of a case of Duhem-Quine underdetermination originating in the violation of Bell’s Inequalities and involving several contemporary conceptions of quantum mechanics: the instrumentalist approach called ‘no interpretation view’ (Fuchs and Peres, 2000), Bohmian Mechanics (Dürr and Teufel, 2009), the veiled reality conception (d'Espagnat, 2011) and the approach with extended probabilities (Gell-Mann and Hartle, 2012). First, I briefly expose how the violation of Bell’s Inequalities can be understood as imposing a necessary trade-off between epistemic values usually satisfied in the context of classical physics. This allows conceiving the proponents of the studied approaches as standing in “faultless” or “rational” disagreement (Gattei, 2008; Pritchard, 2009). However, while the idea of faultless disagreement becomes more and more accepted, pluralism is rarely advocated for beyond the epistemological (cognitive) human sphere. Indeed, while it is often acknowledged that several competing theories can all be reasonably endorsed (Kelly, 2005), admitting that more than one is really is usually considered as opening the door to anti-realism (about entities described by scientific theories and about truth) or to relativism. I then mobilize Putnam’s pragmatic realism to challenge this last claim, in discussing the possibility of admitting a plurality of true theories while preserving scientific realism and realism about truth. The core of Putnam’s conception is to reject sense data (or inner theater) epistemology in considering that genuine aspects of reality (and not mere mental phenomena) are met in our ordinary perception (Putnam, 1999, 2013). Putnam arrived at this conclusion after a long intellectual path initiated with the rejection of metaphysical realism and its associated understanding of truth as a unique (and transcontextual) substantive property (of correspondence to the metaphysical reality). Putnam first opposed to this type of view his internal realism in which truth becomes intimately connected to standards of rational acceptability, opening the road for conceptual pluralism (Putnam, 1981). However, this first attempt proved unsatisfying, providing no sufficient ground for realism and for discrimination between truth and verification. Putnam diagnosis is then radical: in the framework of sense data epistemology, one cannot escape the forced choice between metaphysical realism and verificationism – this is the antinomy of realism (Putnam, 1999). With pragmatic realism and the rejection of the inner theater picture, Putnam proposes an interesting alternative. It becomes possible to admit the disquotational conception of truth from Tarski while 1) escaping its deflationist interpretation without returning to metaphysical realism and 2) maintaining conceptual pluralism. According to pragmatic realism, the way a knowledge claim can be responsible to reality – can be true – is neither unique nor fixed in advance. As it will be illustrated with the discussion of the disagreement about quantum mechanics, this pragmatic realism framework permits the combined admission of conceptual pluralism and scientific realism. • Bernstein, R. J. (2005). In Y. Ben-Menahem (Ed.), Hilary Putnam (pp. 251-265): Cambridge University Press. • D'Espagnat, B. (2011). Foundations of Physics, 41(11), 1703-1716. • Dürr, D. and Teufel, S. (2009). Bohmian Mechanics: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. • Fuchs, C. A. and Peres, A. (2000). Physics Today, 53(3), 70-71. • Gattei, S. (2008). Thomas Kuhn's "Linguistic Turn" and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism: Incommensurability, Rationality and the Search for Truth: Ashgate. • Gell-Mann, M. and Hartle, J. B. (2012). Physical Review A, 85(6), 062120. • Kelly, T. (2005). In T. Szabó Gendler and J. Hawthorne