O espectro da metametafísica

Mapeando o estado da arte na metafísica científica

Autores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-6746.2021.1.41217

Palavras-chave:

Metametafisica, Metafisica, Metafísica científica, Metodologia da metafísica, Naturalismo

Resumo

O realismo científico é comumente associado à metafísica. Uma encarnação atual de tal associação diz respeito à exigência de uma caracterização metafísica das entidades sobre as quais alguém está sendo realista. Isso, às vezes, é chamado de “Desafio de Chakravartty” e codifica a afirmação de que, sem uma caracterização metafísica, não se tem uma imagem clara dos compromissos com os quais o realismo está engajado. A conexão necessária entre a metafísica e a ciência naturalmente levanta a questão de saber se tal demanda é adequadamente satisfeita e como a metafísica se relaciona com a ciência a fim de produzir o que é chamado de “metafísica científica”. Aqui, mapeamos algumas das opções disponíveis na literatura, gerando um espectro conceitual de acordo com como cada visão aproxima a ciência da metafísica. Isso é feito com o propósito de esclarecer o debate atual sobre a possibilidade de garantia epistêmica que a ciência poderia conceder à metafísica, e como diferentes posições abordam de forma diferente a espinhosa questão relativa à tal garantia.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Biografia do Autor

Jonas R. Becker Arenhart, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, SC, Brasil; Universidade Federal do Maranhão (UFMA), São Luís, MA, Brasil.

Doutor em Filosofia pela Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), em Florianópolis, SC, Brasil; professor da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), em Florianópolis, SC, Brasil. Professor colaborador do Programa de Pós-graduação em Filosofia na Universidade Federal do Maranhão (UFMA), em São Luís, MA, Brasil. Bolsista de Produtividade em Pesquisa do CNPq (Nível 2). Membro do International Network on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Information e do Grupo de Pesquisa em Lógica e Fundamentos da Ciência (CNPq).

Raoni Wohnrath Arroyo, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, SC, Brasil.

Doutor em Filosofia pela Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), em Florianópolis, SC, Brasil; pesquisador pós-doutoral da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), em Florianópolis, SC, Brasil. Membro do International Network on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Information e do Grupo de Pesquisa em Lógica e Fundamentos da Ciência (CNPq).

Referências

ARENHART, J. R. B. Ontological frameworks for scientific theories. Foundations of science, [S. I.], v. 17, n. 4, p. 339-356, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-012-9288-5

ARENHART, J. R. B.; ARROYO, R. W. On physics, metaphysics, and metametaphysics. Metaphilosophy, [S. I.], v. 52, n. 2, p. 175-199, 2021a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12486

ARENHART, J. R. B.; ARROYO, R. W. Back to the question of ontology (and metaphysics). Manuscrito, [S. I.], v. 44, n. 2, p. 1-51, 2021b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2021.v44n2.jr

ARROYO, R. W. Is Coronavirus an object? Metametaphysics meets medical sciences. Voluntas, [S. I.], v. 11, n. 5, p. 1-8, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5902/2179378643633

ARROYO, R. W.; ARENHART, J. R. B. Between physics and metaphysics: A discussion of the status of mind in quantum mechanics. In: DE BARROS, J. A.; MONTEMAYOR, C. (ed.). Quanta and Mind: Essays on the Connection between Quantum Mechanics and the Consciousness. Switzerland: Springer, 2019. p. 31-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21908-6_3

ARROYO, R. W.; ARENHART, J. R. B. Floating free from physics: The metaphysics of quantum mechanics. In: AERTS, D. et al. (ed.). Probing the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics. Singapore: World Scientific, 2021. Forthcoming. Available at: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18477. Accessed on: Jun 25 2021.

BENNETT, K. There is no special problem with metaphysics. Philosophical Studies, [S. I.], v. 173, n. 1, p. 21-37, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0439-0

BENOVSKY, J. Meta-metaphysics: On metaphysical equivalence, primitiveness, and theory choice. Switzerland: Springer, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25334-3

BRADING, K.; SKILES, A. Underdetermination as a path to structural realism. In: LANDRY, E. M.; RICKLES, D. P. (ed.). Structural Realism: Structure, Object, and Causality. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. p. 99-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2579-9_5

BRYANT, A. Naturalisms. Think, [S. I.], v. 19, n. 56, p. 35-50, 2020a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175620000196

BRYANT, A. Keep the chickens cooped: the epistemic inadequacy of free range metaphysics. Synthese, [S. I.], v. 197, n. 5, p. 1867-1887, 2020b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1398-8

BUENO, O. Structural realism, mathematics, and ontology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, [S. I.], v. 74, p. 4-9, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.12.005

BURGESS, J. P. Mathematics and Bleak House. Philosophia Mathematica, [S. I.], v. 12.1, p. 18-36, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/philmat/12.1.18

CALLENDER, C. Philosophy of science and metaphysics. In: FRENCH, S.; SAATSI, J. (ed.). The Continuum Companion to the Philosophy of Science. London: Continuum, 2011. p. 33-54.

CHAKRAVARTTY, A. A metaphysics for scientific realism: Knowing the unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487354

CHAKRAVARTTY, A. Six degrees of speculation: Metaphysics in empirical contexts. In: MONTON, B. (ed.). Images of empiricism: Essays on science and stances, with a reply from Bas C. van Fraassen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 183-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199218844.003.0010

CHAKRAVARTTY, A. Inessential Aristotle: Powers without essences. In: GROFF, R. (ed.). Revitalizing Causality: Realism about causality in philosophy and social science. New York: Routledge, 2008.

CHAKRAVARTTY, A. On the prospects of naturalized metaphysics. In: ROSS, D.; LADYMAN, J.; KINCAID, H. (ed.). Scientific Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 27-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696499.003.0002

CHAKRAVARTTY, A. Scientific ontology: Integrating naturalized metaphysics and voluntarist epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

CHAKRAVARTTY, A. Physics, metaphysics, disposition, and symmetries – à la French. Studies in Hisory and Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 74, p. 10-15, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.12.006

DE RONDE, C. Immanent powers versus causal powers (propensities, latencies and dispositions) in quantum mechanics. In: AERTS, D. et al. (ed.). Probing the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics: Information, Contextuality, Relationalism and Entanglement. Singapore: World Scientific, 2019. p. 141-178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813276895_0008

DE RONDE, C.; MASSRI, C. The logos categorical approach to quantum mechanics: I. Kochen-Specker contextuality and global intensive valuations. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, [S. I.], v. 60, b. 2, p. 429-456, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-018-3914-0

DE RONDE, C.; MASSRI, C. The logos categorical approach to quantum mechanics: II. Quantum superpositions and intensive values. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, [S. I.], v. 58, p. 1986-1988, 2019a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-019-04091-x

DE RONDE, C.; MASSRI, C. A new objective definition of quantum entanglement as potential coding of intensive and effective relations. Synthese, [S. I.], p. 1-28, 2019b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02482-5

FRENCH, S. The structure of the world: Metaphysics and representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684847.001.0001

FRENCH, S. Realism and metaphysics. In: SAATSI, J. (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism. New York: Routledge, 2018a. p. 394-406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203712498-32

FRENCH, S. Toying with the toolbox: How metaphysics can still make a contribution. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 49, p. 211-230, 2018b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-018-9401-8

FRENCH, S. Defending eliminative structuralism and a whole lot more (or less). Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, [S. I.], v. 74, p. 22-29, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.12.007

FRENCH, S. Doing away with dispositions: Powers in the context of modern physics. In: MEINCKE, A. S. (Ed.). Dispositionalism: Perspectives from Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science. Cham: Synthese, 2020. p. 189-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28722-1_12

FRENCH, S.; KRAUSE, D. Identity in physics: A historical, philosophical, and formal analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199278245.001.0001

FRENCH, S.; MCKENZIE, K. Thinking outside the toolbox: Towards a more productive engagement between metaphysics and philosophy of physics. European journal of analytic philosophy, [S. I.], v. 8, n. 1, p. 42-59, 2012.

FRENCH, S.; MCKENZIE, K. Rethinking outside the toolbox: Reflecting again on the relationship between philosophy of science and metaphysics. In: BIGAJ, T.; WÜTHRICH, C. (ed.). Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics. Leiden: Brill/Rodopi, 2015. p. 25-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004310827_003

GUAY, A.; PRADEU, T. Right out of the box: How to situate metaphysics of science in relation to other metaphysical approaches. Synthese, [S. I.], v. 197, n. 5, p. 1847-1866, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1576-8

HEISENBERG, W. Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York: Harper and Row, 1958.

HOFWEBER, T. Carnap’s big idea. In: BLATTI, S.; LAPOINTE, S. (ed.). Ontology after Carnap. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. p. 13-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661985.003.0002

HOFWEBER, T. How metaphysics is special: comments on Bennett. Philosophical Studies, [S. I.], v. 173, n. 1, p. 39-48, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0435-4

HOFWEBER, T. Is metaphysics special? In: BLISS, R.; MILLER, J. T. M. (ed.). The Routledge Book of Metametaphysics. London: Routledge, 2021. p. 421-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315112596-33

LADYMAN, J. What is structural realism? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 29, n. 3, p. 409-424, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(98)80129-5

LADYMAN, J.; ROSS, D. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276196.001.0001

LEWIS, P. J. Quantum Ontology: A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190469825.001.0001

LOWE, J. E. The possibility of metaphysics: Substance, identity, and time. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

LOWE, J. E. The rationality of metaphysics. Synthese, [S. I.], v. 178, p. 99-109, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9514-z

MADDY, P. Three forms of naturalism. In: SHAPIRO, S. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. p. 437-459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0195148770.003.0013

MADDY, P. Second Philosophy: A Naturalistic Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273669.001.0001

MARGENAU, H. Philosophical problems concerning the meaning of measurement in physics. Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 25, p. 23-33, 1958. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/287574

MCKENZIE, K. A curse on both houses: Naturalistic versus A Priori metaphysics and the problem of progress. Res Philosophica, [S. I.], v. 97, n. 1, p. 1-29, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.1868

MCLEOD, M.; PARSONS, J. Maclaurin and Dyke on analytic metaphysics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Routledge, v. 91, n. 1, p. 173-178, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2012.730534

MORGANTI, M. Science-based metaphysics: On some recent anti-metaphysical claims. Philosophia Scientiæ, [S. I.], v. 19, n. 1, p. 57-70, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/philosophiascientiae.1038

MORGANTI, M.; TAHKO, T. E. Moderately naturalistic metaphysics. Synthese, [S. I.], v. 194, n. 7, p. 2557-2580, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1068-2

PAUL, L. A. Metaphysics as modeling: The Handmaiden’s Tale. Philosophical Studies, [S. I.], v. 160, p. 1-29, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9906-7

PSILLOS, S. Choosing the realist framework. Synthese, [S. I.], v. 180, n. 2, p. 301-316, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9606-9

QUINE, W. V. O. On Carnap’s views on ontology. Philosophical Studies, [S. I.], v. 2, n. 5, p. 65-72, 1951. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02199422

ROBUS, O. M. Does science license metaphysics? Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 89, n. 5, p. 845-855, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/684023

ROSS, D.; SPURRETT, D. What to say to a skeptical metaphysician: A defense manual for cognitive and behavioral scientists. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, [S. I.], v. 27, n. 5, p. 603-627, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000147

SKLAR, L. I’d love to be a naturalist—if only I knew what naturalism was. Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 77, n. 5, p. 1121-1137, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/656827

TAHKO, T. E. An introduction to metametaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

THOMSON-JONES, M. Against bracketing and complacency: Metaphysics and the methodology of the sciences. In: SLATER, M. H.; YUDELL, Z. (ed.). In Metaphysics in the Philosophy of Science: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. p. 229-250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199363209.003.0011

VAN FRAASSEN, B. C. Quantum mechanics: An Empiricist View. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198239807.001.0001

VETTER, B. Digging deeper: Why metaphysics is more than a toolbox. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 49, p. 231-241, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-017-9387-7

WALLACE, D. The emergent multiverse: Quantum theory according to the Everett interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546961.001.0001

WOLFF, J. Naturalistic quietism or scientific realism? Synthese, [S. I.], v. 196, n. 2, p. 485-498, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0873-3

Downloads

Publicado

2021-12-27

Como Citar

Arenhart, J. R. B., & Arroyo, R. W. (2021). O espectro da metametafísica: Mapeando o estado da arte na metafísica científica. Veritas (Porto Alegre), 66(1), e41217. https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-6746.2021.1.41217

Edição

v. 66 n. 1 (2021): Volume Único

Seção

Epistemologia & Filosofia da Linguagem

Licença

Copyright (c) 2021 Veritas (Porto Alegre)

Creative Commons License
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Direitos Autorais

A submissão de originais para a Revista Veritas implica na transferência, pelos autores, dos direitos de publicação. Os direitos autorais para os artigos publicados nesta revista são do autor, com direitos da revista sobre a primeira publicação. Os autores somente poderão utilizar os mesmos resultados em outras publicações indicando claramente a Revista Veritas como o meio da publicação original.


Licença Creative Commons

Exceto onde especificado diferentemente, aplicam-se à matéria publicada neste periódico os termos de uma licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional, que permite o uso irrestrito, a distribuição e a reprodução em qualquer meio desde que a publicação original seja corretamente citada. Copyright: © 2006-2020 EDIPUCRS