Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:51:48.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

‘Truth’, ‘justice’, and the American wave… function: comments on Alexander Wendt's Quantum Mind and Social Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2022

Fred Chernoff*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Colgate University, 13 Oak Drive, Hamilton, NY13346, USA
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: fchernoff@colgate.edu

Abstract

This paper examines several aspects of Alexander Wendt's Quantum Mind and Social Science. The paper questions the nature of the task, as ontologies are debated in a scientific field once there is a widely accepted substantive theory that stands in need of interpretation, as with Newtonian physics or quantum mechanics; doing this job for international relations (IR) is highly questionable give that there is no widely accepted substantive theory of IR that needs an interpretation. Second, the paper questions Wendt's view of the consequences for ontology of quantum theory being replaced in the future; Wendt the interpretation of the history of science maintains that in the physical sciences a new theory subsumes the older theory, including its ontology. But, this seems to misread history, while the empirical content of classical physics is subsumed by relativity theory, it is far from true that the former's ontology was subsumed. The ontologies are in sharp contrast. The paper raises questions also about the notion of ‘truth’ and of the meaningfulness of evaluative concepts like ‘justice’.

Type
Book Symposium: Alexander Wendt, Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashtekar, Abhay. 2005. “Gravity and the Quantum.” New Journal of Physics 7 (198): 200–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridgman, Percy Williams. 1938. The Logic of Modern Physics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1994. Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 2005. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chernoff, Fred. 1981. “Leibniz Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles.” Philosophical Quarterly 31 (123): 126–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernoff, Fred. 2005. The Power of International Theory: Re-Forging the Link to Policy-Making through Scientific Enquiry. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chernoff, Fred. 2007. “Methodological Pluralism and the Limits of Naturalism in the Study of Politics.” In Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations, edited by Lebow, Richard Ned and Lichbach, Mark I., 107–41. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernoff, Fred. 2009. “The Ontological Fallacy: A Rejoinder on the Status of Scientific Realism in International Relations.” Review of International Studies 35 (2): 371–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernoff, Fred. 2014. Explanation and Progress in Security Studies. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, William Lane. 2001. Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, Albert. 1970. Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, ed. Schilpp, Paul Arthur. LaSalle, IL: Open Court. Original autobiographical content published in 1949.Google Scholar
Feigl, Herbert. 1958. “The ‘Mental’ and the ‘Physical’.” In Concepts, Theories and the Mind–Body Problem, Vol. 2 of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Feigl, Herbert, Scriven, Michael and Maxwell, Grover, 370497. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1974. “Special Sciences (Or the Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis).” Synthèse 28 (2): 97115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 2000. The Mind Doesn't Work That Way: The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folse, Henry. 1986. “Niels Bohr, Complementarity, and Realism.” In PSA 1986: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1, edited by Fine, Arthur and Machamer, Peter, 96104. East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Horwich, Paul. 2010. Truth, Meaning, Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, Kimberly. 2022. “Empire and Insurgency: The Politics of Truth in Alexander Wendt's Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology.” International Theory 14 (1): 183–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2022. “The Strange Fate of the ‘Rump Materialism’: A Comment on the Vagaries of Social Science as Seen Through Alexander Wendt's Quantum Mind and Social Science.” International Theory 14 (1): 169–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kydd, Andrew. 2022. “Our Place in the Universe: Alexander Wendt and Quantum Mechanics.” International Theory 14 (1): 130–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, and Clarke, Samuel. 2000. A Collection of Papers, Which Passed Between the Late Learned Mr. Leibnitz and Dr Clarke in the Years 1715 and 1716: Relating to the Principles of Natural Philosophy and Religion. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst. 1970. “The Guiding Principles of My Scientific Theory of Knowledge and its Reception by My Contemporaries.” In Physical Reality edited by Stephen Toulmin, 44–53. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Mackonis, Adolfas. 2013. “Inference to the Best Explanation, Coherence and Other Explanatory Virtues.” Synthese 190 (6): 975–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1932. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce; Vol II Elements of Logic, ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Penrose, Sir Roger. 2011. “Uncertainty in Quantum Mechanics: Faith or Fantasy?Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 369: 2864–90.Google ScholarPubMed
Place, U.T. 1956. “Is Consciousness a Brain Process?British Journal of Psychology 47 (1): 4450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popper, Karl Raimond. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Ormand. 1953. From a Logical Point of View: Nine Logico-Philosophical Essays. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Slowik, Edward. 2013. “Newton's Neoplatonic Ontology of Space.” Foundations of Science 18 (3): 419–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas C. 1980. The Scientific Image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas C. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickers, Peter. 2013. Understanding Inconsistent Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2015. Quantum Mind and Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2022. “Why IR Scholars Should Care About Quantum Theory, Part II: Critics in the PITs.” International Theory 14 (1): 193209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar