Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:55:58.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Physics Answer Metaphysical Questions?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2017

James Ladyman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

According to logical positivism, so the story goes, metaphysical questions are meaningless, since they do not admit of empirical confirmation or refutation. However, the logical positivists did not in fact reject as meaningless all questions about for example, the structure of space and time. Rather, key figures such as Reichenbach and Schlick believed that scientific theories often presupposed a conceptual framework that was not itself empirically testable, but which was required for the theory as a whole to be empirically testable. For example, the theory of Special Relativity relies upon the simultaneity convention introduced by Einstein that assumes that the one-way speed of light is the same in all directions of space. Hence, the logical positivists accepted an a priori component to physical theories. However, they denied that this a priori component is necessarily true. Whereas for Kant, metaphysics is the a priori science of the necessary structure of rational thought about reality (rather than about things in themselves), the logical positivists were forced by the history of science to accept that the a priori structure of theories could change. Hence, they defended a notion of what Michael Friedman (1999) calls the ‘relativised’ or the ‘constitutive’ a priori. Carnap and Reichenbach held that such an a priori framework was conventional, whereas Schlick seems to have been more of a realist and held that the overall relative simplicity of different theories could count as evidence for their truth, notwithstanding the fact that some parts of them are not directly testable. All this is part of the story of how the verification principle came to be abandoned, and how logical positivism transmuted into logical empiricism.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 61 , October 2007 , pp. 179 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2007

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

Albert, D. (2000), Time and Chance, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, M. (1989), Principles of Cosmology and Gravitation, Bristol: Adam Hilger.Google Scholar
Bourne, C. (2004), ‘Becoming inflated’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callender, C. and Huggett, N. eds. (2001), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale: Contemporary Theories in Quantum Gravity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couvalis, S. (1997), The Philosophy of Science: Science and Objectivity. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M. (2000), ‘Is Time a Continuum of Instants?’, Philosophy 75, 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S. (1998), ‘On the withering away of physical objects’, in Castellani, E., ed., Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics, 93–113. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1999), Reconsidering Logical Positivism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gödel, K. (1949), ‘A remark about the relationship between Relativity Theory and idealistic philosophy’, in Schilpp, A., ed., Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, 557–562, La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Greene, B. (2004), The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality, London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Hawley, K. (2006), ‘Science as a Guide to Metaphysics’, Synthese, 149, 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, W. (1962), Physics and Philosophy, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. (1998), From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jeans, J. (1943), Physics and Philosophy, Republished by New York: Dover 1981.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. and Ross, D. (2007), Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalised, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, E.J. (2002), A Survey of Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malament, D. (2006), ‘Classical General Relativity’, in Butterfield, J. and Earman, J., eds., Handbook of the Philosophy of Physics, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lucas, J. and Hodgson, P. (1990), Spacetime and Electromagnetism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. (2002b). Remarks on the passing of time. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102: 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1967), ‘Time and physical geometry’, Journal of Philosophy 64, 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, S. (1996), Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1956), The Direction of Time. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rovelli, C. (2004), Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. (2001), Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, L. (1981), ‘Time, Reality and Relativity’, in Healey, R. (ed.), Reduction, Time and Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smolin, L. (2006), ‘The relational idea in physics and cosmology’, in Rickles, D., French, S. and Saatsi, J., Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stein, H. (1968), ‘On Einstein-Minkowski space-time’, Journal of Philosophy 65, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, H. (1991), ‘On relativity and openness of the future’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooley, M. (2000), Time, Tense and Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B.C. (1991), Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B.C. (2002), The Empirical Stance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. (2000), ‘The quantization of gravity—An introduction’ unpublished manuscript, available at arXiv:gr-qc/0004005 v1.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. (1975), ‘Metaphysics and the Advancement of Science’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 26, 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar