Structuralism as a Stance

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that ontic structural realism is best understood not as a thesis or doctrine concerning how the world fundamentally is, but rather as a “stance” in the sense of van Fraassen (2002). I do so via an argument analogous to that which van Fraassen offers for why materialism should be regarded as a stance; namely, that by thinking of it as such we have a better explanation of the behavior of the putative doctrine’s adherents. In particular, I argue that thinking of structuralism as a stance best explains the toleration of disagreement within the structuralist community with respect to whether quantum fields ought to be classified as “objects” or “structures.” I close by offering a preliminary characterization of what the structuralist stance could consist in, arguing that it should be thought of as a sort of methodological orientation or injunction; namely, the injunction to foreground, when doing metaphysics, that the language of physics is mathematics.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.