Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Naturalistic Metaphysics and the Parity Thesis: Why Scientific Realism Doesn't Lead to Realism about Metaphysics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Scientific realism does not force realism about metaphysics, even in a naturalistic framework.

desk verdict A fair, clear attack on the parity thesis; the key empirical premise about metaphysical hypotheses is asserted more than defended, but the paper earns its place. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07751 v1 pith:DM6TJINP submitted 2025-05-12 physics.hist-ph quant-ph

Raoni Arroyo , Matteo Morganti This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phquant-ph
keywords paritythesisnaturalisticmetaphysicsscientificrealismmeta-metaphysicsmetaphysicalantirealismunderdeterminationepistemicattitudenovelpredictions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the 'parity thesis'—the widely held view that naturalists should take the same epistemic attitude toward metaphysics as toward science—fails in its main direction. While the authors agree that a naturalist who rejects realism about science cannot plausibly be a realist about metaphysics, they deny the converse inference: scientific realism does not make realism about metaphysics significantly more plausible. Their key reason is that the features that justify scientific realism, such as novel predictions, manipulability of posits, and consilience, are systematically absent from typical metaphysical hypotheses, which remain underdetermined by any fixed scientific evidence. If this is right, naturalistic metaphysicians can be scientific realists while using metaphysical theories as useful, accepted, or fictional models rather than as objects of belief.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the formal reconstruction of the parity argument as a conditional chain: naturalism entails content naturalism or methodological naturalism; content naturalism entails methodological naturalism; methodological naturalism entails shared goals; and shared goals are said to entail the same epistemic attitude. The paper attacks the final entailment by separating two questions: whether science and metaphysics cooperate and avoid conflict, and whether each domain's hypotheses deserve belief. The operative distinction is between warrant by empirical success, which can justify realism in science, and merely extra-empirical theoretical virtues, which the paper takes to be non-truth-conducive; because metaphysical glosses on any scientific theory remain underdetermined by the data, the realist warrant does not extend.

What would settle it

Find a recognizably metaphysical posit—say, a specific account of object persistence or of quantum individuality—that is isolated from the scientific theory, and that yields a novel empirical prediction no competing metaphysics makes, and then confirm the prediction. That would put a genuinely metaphysical hypothesis on the same epistemic footing as a scientifically real one and undercut the paper's key premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that content and methodological continuity between science and metaphysics do not transfer epistemic warrant. Reconstructing the case for parity as a chain from naturalism through content naturalism and methodological naturalism to shared goals, the authors locate the unsound step in the move from shared goals to shared epistemic attitude. They argue that the strongest scientific realist arguments trade on evidence—novel predictions, manipulation of posits, consilience among independent lines of induction—that metaphysical hypotheses, almost by definition, cannot have, so the high confidence owed to scientific theories does not carry over to metaphysics. The positive conclusion is that a naturalist can be a scientific realist and still treat metaphysical theories non-eliminatively but non-realistically, for example by accepting them for purposes of understanding or by viewing them as fictions.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the claim that typical metaphysical hypotheses never deliver the kinds of evidence that justify scientific realism—novel predictions, manipulable posits, consilience—and that those features are required for justified realism; if even one metaphysical posit could secure such evidence, the inference from scientific realism to realism about metaphysics could be restored.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Naturalistic metaphysicians who are scientific realists can consistently adopt acceptance, fictionalism, or neo-Pyrrhonian suspension toward metaphysical theories without eliminating them.
  • Defenders of realism about metaphysics now owe positive evidence of novel-prediction or manipulation-grade support for metaphysical posits, rather than invoking continuity with science alone.
  • Metaphysical underdetermination in science does not undermine scientific realism; it only blocks the extension of realism to the metaphysical interpretation of the theory.
  • The notion of epistemic risk replaces a binary realistic-versus-eliminative choice with a graded picture in which science constrains metaphysics without lending it full belief.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One step beyond the paper: the same separation of truth from understanding could be applied within science, suggesting a graded continuum of epistemic risk rather than a sharp divide between scientific and metaphysical posits.
  • A further consequence the paper does not pursue: if realism about science does not require realism about its metaphysical interpretations, then 'scientific realism' should be specified at the level of the theory's mathematical-empirical content, not its interpretive gloss.
  • An empirical check on the paper's premise: survey cases in which an explicitly metaphysical commitment contributed to a novel empirical prediction; one such case would weaken the claim that typical metaphysical hypotheses never have this property.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper defines the 'parity thesis' (PT) as the claim that naturalism (N) makes it plausible that one's epistemic attitude toward science and toward metaphysics should be the same: N → (R(s) ↔ R(m)). It argues that PT is widely, often implicitly, endorsed by naturalistic philosophers, and it identifies Nina Emery (2023) as the only explicit defender. The paper reconstructs Emery's argument as: 1) N → (NC ∨ NM); 2) NC → NM; 3) NM → SG; 4) SG → PT; therefore N → PT. The authors accept premises 1–3 but reject premise 4, arguing that shared goals do not suffice for sameness of epistemic attitude because the features that justify scientific realism—novel predictions, manipulability, consilience, unavailability of alternatives—are absent from typical metaphysical hypotheses. They conclude that a naturalist can consistently be a scientific realist while adopting a non-eliminative, non-realist attitude toward metaphysics, e.g., via acceptance or fictionalism.

Significance. The paper addresses a significant and underexplored meta-metaphysical question: whether scientific realism, combined with naturalism, rationally compels realism about metaphysics. Its reconstruction of Emery's argument is clear and fair, and the paper usefully identifies a pervasive but often implicit commitment to the parity thesis in the literature. If the conclusion is correct, it opens a defensible middle ground between realism about metaphysics and eliminativism, which is of genuine interest to metaphysicians and philosophers of science. The paper is concise, well-written, and engages with a broad range of relevant sources. Its main strength is that it pinpoints the exact premise on which the parity thesis rests and offers a plausible counter-consideration.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, near fn. 16 and fn. 18] The rejection of premise 4 (SG → PT) rests on the empirical-descriptive claim that 'typical metaphysical hypotheses' lack realism-conducive features such as novel predictions, manipulability, consilience, and unavailability of alternatives. This claim is load-bearing, yet the paper does not systematically defend it. The quantum case study is explicitly disavowed as not paradigmatic (fn. 18), and the paper grants that 'not all scientific theories and claims exhibit such properties—at least not in the same way.' Without a principled criterion for when a hypothesis can be realist-warranted in the absence of these features, or a survey showing that typical metaphysics indeed lacks them, the inference from scientific realism to realism about metaphysics could be restored for at least a subclass of metaphysical hypotheses, and PT would survive in non-trivial form. The paper should either provide such a defense or restrict its conclusion accordingly.
  2. [§1, definition of metaphysics; §3, premise 4] The paper stipulates a narrow definition of metaphysics as involving 'sui generis vocabulary and extra-scientific notions' (near fn. 11). This makes the absence of novel empirical predictions partly analytic: if metaphysics is defined as extra-scientific, then by definition its hypotheses do not yield novel empirical predictions in the scientific sense. A proponent of Emery who adopts Ney's broader characterization (where commitments such as Lorentz invariance or the Born Rule count as metaphysical) can reject the falsity of premise 4 as question-begging. The paper's remark that those who prefer the broader conception may restrict the discussion to non-trivial versions of PT does not fully disarm the objection, since Emery's own argument may not presuppose the narrow definition. The paper needs to argue that Emery should accept the narrow definition, or show that the argument fails on the broader definition as well.
  3. [§3, fn. 15] The paper dismisses theoretical virtues as 'not truth-conducive' while acknowledging in the same footnote that this is contested (citing Dawid 2013 and Schindler 2018). It then says that 'the fact suffices that scientific realism is typically not based on considerations of simplicity, parsimony and the like.' This is not sufficient for the argument: if theoretical virtues can be truth-conducive, then metaphysical hypotheses, whose theory choice relies heavily on such virtues, could be realist-warranted, undermining the claim that realism-conducive features are absent from metaphysics. The paper should either engage with the pro-virtue literature more substantively or weaken the claim to 'the strongest extant arguments for scientific realism in fact rely on features other than theoretical virtues' and then show that those specific features are absent from typical metaphysics.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3] There is a typo in the formal reconstruction: 'formulated as follws' should read 'formulated as follows.'
  2. [Acknowledgements] 'Unviersity of Roma Tre' should be 'University of Roma Tre.'
  3. [§2] The term 'pragmatism' is introduced as Emery's term, but the paper immediately replaces it with 'instrumentalism.' This is fine, but the substitution should be flagged more prominently in the first use, since later references to 'pragmatism about metaphysics' (e.g., in §4) may confuse readers who have lost track of the substitution.
  4. [§4] The discussion of fictionalism is brief and points to future work; this is acceptable given the paper's focus, but the final paragraph could more clearly distinguish the proposed acceptance-based view from the broader fictionalist position to avoid the impression that the conclusion depends on an undefended commitment to fictionalism.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a critical commentary on Emery's argument, and its central premises are independent of its conclusion.

full rationale

This is a conceptual-critical philosophy paper, not an empirical derivation, so the circularity patterns based on fitted parameters, equations, or prediction-from-fit do not apply. The authors formalize Emery's argument and attack premise 4, the step from shared goals to shared epistemic attitude; their rejection rests on the substantive claim that scientific realism's warrant-conferring features (novel predictions, manipulability, consilience) are absent from typical metaphysical hypotheses. This is an independent, if contestable, premise rather than a consequence of the conclusion being defended. The paper explicitly grants Emery's premises 1-3 and focuses on 4, and it explicitly disavows generalizing from its quantum case study in footnote 18. The self-citations (Arroyo & Morganti 2025 for the label 'parity thesis', Arenhart & Arroyo 2021 for underdetermination) are terminological or background support, not load-bearing justifications of the main claim. The stipulated narrow definition of metaphysics makes the absence of novel empirical predictions partly analytic, but the authors acknowledge this scope restriction and the normative conclusion still depends on independent assumptions about truth-conduciveness. Thus no step reduces to its own input, and no self-citation carries the argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's argument rests on empirical or descriptive claims about the state of the scientific realism debate and about what metaphysics can do; these are not derived in the paper but are assumed from the literature or from a stipulated definition.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The strongest arguments for scientific realism are not based on methodology or theoretical virtues but on features such as novel predictions, manipulability, and consilience.
    Invoked in §3 to argue that these features are absent from metaphysics, hence scientific realism does not carry over. This is a claim about the actual scientific realism literature, contested by some (e.g., those who defend inference to the best explanation).
  • domain assumption Typical metaphysical hypotheses do not lead to novel empirical predictions and no metaphysical posit is manipulable.
    Stated in §3, it underpins the claim that realism-conducive features are missing in metaphysics. Depends on the paper's stipulated definition of metaphysics as extra-scientific.
  • domain assumption Content naturalism entails methodological naturalism (NC -> NM).
    The authors explicitly grant Emery's argument for this in §3, writing that they will take it for granted.
  • domain assumption Theoretical virtues are not truth-conducive.
    Relying on Kuhn (1977), used to deny that shared methodology supports realism about metaphysics. This is a contested claim in philosophy of science.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Naturalistic Metaphysics and the Parity Thesis: Why Scientific Realism Doesn't Lead to Realism about Metaphysics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DM6TJINP

@misc{pith2026250507751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Naturalistic Metaphysics and the Parity Thesis: Why Scientific Realism Doesn't Lead to Realism about Metaphysics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DM6TJINP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07751}
}
read the original abstract

In recent work, Nina Emery has defended the view that, in the context of naturalistic metaphysics, one should maintain the same epistemic attitude towards science and metaphysics. That is, naturalists who are scientific realists ought to be realists about metaphysics as well; and naturalists who are antirealists about science should also be antirealists about metaphysics. We call this the `parity thesis'. This paper suggests that the parity thesis is widely, albeit often implicitly, accepted among naturalistically inclined philosophers, and essentially for reasons similar to Emery's. Then, reasons are provided for resisting Emery's specific inference from scientific realism to realism about metaphysics. The resulting picture is a more nuanced view of the relationship between science and metaphysics within the naturalistic setting than the one which is currently most popular.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alai, M. (2021). The Historical Challenge to Realism and Essential Deployment. In Lyon, T. &

    work page 2021

  2. [3]

    Alai, M. (2023). Scientific Realism, Metaphysical Antirealism and the No Miracle Arguments. Foundations of Science , 28 (1), pp. 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09691-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s10699-020-09691-z 2023

  3. [4]

    Andersen, F., & Arenhart, J. R. B. (2016). Metaphysics within Science: Against Radical Naturalism. Metaphilosophy, 47 (2), pp. 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12175

    work page doi:10.1111/meta.12175 2016

  4. [5]

    Arenhart, J. R. B., & Arroyo, R. (2021). Back to the Question of Metaphysics (and Ontology). Manuscrito , 44 (2), pp. 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2021.V44N2.JR

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [6]

    Arroyo, R., & Arenhart, J. R. B. (2024). Quantum Ontology De-naturalized: What we can’t Learn from Quantum Mechanics. Theoria , 39 (2), pp. 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.24955

    work page doi:10.1387/theoria.24955 2024

  6. [7]

    Arroyo, R., & Morganti, M. (2025). The Game of Metaphysics: Towards a Fictionalist (Meta)metaphysics of Science. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale , 125(2)

    work page 2025

  7. [8]

    Balaguer, M. (2025). Realism and Anti-Realism about Metaphysics, in Zalta, E. N. & Nodelman, U. (eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2025 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2025/entries/realism-about-metaphysics/

    work page 2025

  8. [9]

    Bianchi, S., & Giannotti, J. (2021). Grounding ontic structuralism. Synthese, 199 , pp. 5205–5223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-03001-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11229-020-03001-7 2021

Show all 69 references
  1. [10]

    (2020a) Keep the Chickens Cooped: the Epistemic Inadequacy of Free Range Metaphysics

    Bryant, A. (2020a) Keep the Chickens Cooped: the Epistemic Inadequacy of Free Range Metaphysics. Synthese 197 , pp. 1867–1887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1398-8

    2020 doi

  2. [11]

    Bryant, A. (2020b). Epistemic Infrastructure for a Scientific Metaphysics. Grazer Philosophische 23 Studien, 98 (1), pp. 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-000096

    2020 doi

  3. [12]

    Bryant, A. (2024). Naturalized Metaphysics without Scientific Realism. Argumenta, 10 (1), pp. 13–33. http://doi.org/10.14275/2465-2334/20240.bry

    2024 doi

  4. [13]

    Bryant, A., & Wilson, A. (2024). Modal Naturalism: Science and the Modal Facts . Cambridge University

    2024

  5. [14]

    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009351645

    Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009351645

    doi

  6. [15]

    Bueno, O. (2021). Neo-Pyrrhonism, Empiricism, and Scientific Activity. Veritas , 66 (1), p. e4zi84. https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-6746.2021.1.42184

    2021

  7. [16]

    Carnap, R. (1931). Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache. Erkenntnis , 2 , pp. 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02028153

    1931 doi

  8. [17]

    Chakravartty, A. (2025). Naturalizing Metaphysics: Epistemological Challenges. In Kemp, G. N.,

    2025

  9. [18]

    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003430568-11

    Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003430568-11

    doi

  10. [19]

    Chakravartty, A., & van Fraassen, B. C. (2018). What is scientific realism? Spontaneous Generations, 9 (1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.4245/sponge.v9i1.26992

    2018 doi

  11. [20]

    Corti, A. (2023). Scientific Realism Without Reality? What Happens When Metaphysics Is Left Out. Foundations of Science , 28 (1), pp. 455–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09705-w

    2023 doi

  12. [21]

    Dawid, R. (2013). String Theory and the Scientific Method , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342513

    2013 doi

  13. [22]

    Douglas, H. (2013). The Value of Cognitive Values, Philosophy of Science , 80, 5, 796-806

    2013

  14. [23]

    Emery, N. (2023). Naturalism Beyond the Limits of Science: How Scientific Methodology Can and Should Shape Philosophical Theorizing . Oxford University

    2023

  15. [24]

    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197654101.001.0001

    Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197654101.001.0001

  16. [25]

    Esfeld, M. (2013). Ontic Structural Realism and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3, pp. 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-012-0054-x

    2013 doi

  17. [26]

    French, S., & Krause, D. (2006). Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical, and Formal Analysis . Oxford University

    2006

  18. [27]

    https://doi.org/10.1093/0199278245.001.0001

    Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199278245.001.0001

    doi

  19. [28]

    French, S., & McKenzie, K. (2012). Thinking Outside the Toolbox: Towards a More Productive Engagement Between Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Physics. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 8 (1), pp. 42–59

    2012

  20. [29]

    French, S., & McKenzie, K. (2015). Rethinking Outside the Toolbox: Reflecting Again on The Relationship Between Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics. In Bigaj T. & Wu ̈ thrich, C. (Eds.), Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics

    2015

  21. [30]

    Brill, Leiden, pp. 25–54. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004310827_003

    doi

  22. [31]

    French, S. (2014). The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation . Oxford University

    2014

  23. [33]

    French, S. (2018). Realism and Metaphysics. In Saatsi, J. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism

    2018

  24. [34]

    French, S. (2020). What is This Thing Called Structure? (Rummaging in the Toolbox of Metaphysics for an Answer) . Preprint. URL: https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/16921

    2020

  25. [35]

    (2024) Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory

    French, S., & Bigaj, T. (2024) Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory. In Zalta, E. N. &

    2024

  26. [36]

    (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2024 Edition)

    Nodelman, U. (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2024 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2024/entries/qt-idind/

    2024

  27. [37]

    Godfrey-Smith, P. (2006). Theories and Models in Metaphysics. The Harvard Review of Philosophy, 14 (1), pp. 4–19. https://doi.org/10.5840/harvardreview20061411

    2006 doi

  28. [38]

    Guay, A., & Pradeu T. (2020). Right Out of the Box: How to Situate Metaphysics of Science in Relation to Other Metaphysical Approaches. Synthese, 197 (5), pp. 1847–1866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1576-8

    2020 doi

  29. [39]

    Jaksland, R. (2020). Old Problems for Neo-Positivist Naturalized Metaphysics, European Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 10 (2), pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00282-0 Jaksland, R. (2023 a). A Trilemma for Naturalized Metaphysics. Ratio , 36 (1), pp. 1–10. ...

    2020 doi

  30. [40]

    Jaksland, R. (2023b). Naturalized Metaphysics or Displacing Metaphysicians to Save Metaphysics. Synthese, 201 (199), pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04207-1

    2023 doi

  31. [41]

    Keas, M. N. (2018). Systematizing Theoretical Virtues, Synthese , 195 , pp. 2761–2793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1355-6

    2018 doi

  32. [42]

    Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In Kuhn, T. S. (Ed.), The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. University of Chicago Press, chicago, pp. 320–339

    1977

  33. [43]

    Ladyman, J. (2012). Science, metaphysics and method. Philosophical Studies, 160 (1), pp. 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9910-y

    2012 doi

  34. [44]

    Ladyman, J. (2017). An Apology for Naturalized Metaphysics. In Slater, M. & Yudell, Z. (Eds.), Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science: New Essays .Oxford University

    2017

  35. [46]

    Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (2007). Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized . Oxford University

    2007

  36. [48]

    Lewis, P. (2016). Quantum Ontology: A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics , Oxford University

    2016

  37. [50]

    Mackonis, A. (2013). Inference to the Best Explanation, Coherence and Other Explanatory Virtues. Synthese , 190 (6), pp. 975–995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0054-y

    2013 doi

  38. [51]

    McKenzie, K. (2020). A Curse on Both Houses: Naturalistic versus A Priori Metaphysics and the Problem of Progress. Res Philosophica , 97 (1), pp. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.1868 25

    2020 doi

  39. [52]

    McKenzie, K. (2022). Fundamentality and Grounding . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108657617

    2022 doi

  40. [53]

    McMullin, E. (2014). The Virtues of a Good Theory, in Curd, M. & Psillos, S. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science ,

    2014

  41. [54]

    (2023), Metaphysics as Essentially Imaginative and Aiming at Understanding, American Philosophical Quarterly , 60 (1), pp

    McSweeney, M. (2023), Metaphysics as Essentially Imaginative and Aiming at Understanding, American Philosophical Quarterly , 60 (1), pp. 83–97. https://doi.org/10.5406/21521123.60.1.07

    2023 doi

  42. [55]

    Melnyk, A. (2013). Can Metaphysics Be Naturalized? And, if So, How?, in Ross, D., Ladyman, J. &

    2013

  43. [57]

    Morganti, M., & Tahko, T. E. (2017). Moderately Naturalistic Metaphysics. Synthese, 194 , pp. 2557–2580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1068-2

    2017 doi

  44. [58]

    Ney, A. (2012). Neo-positivist Metaphysics. Philosophical Studies, 160 (1): pp. 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9912-9

    2012 doi

  45. [59]

    (2020), Are the Questions of Metaphysics More Fundamental Than Those of Science? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 100, pp

    Ney, A. (2020), Are the Questions of Metaphysics More Fundamental Than Those of Science? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 100, pp. 695–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12571

    2020 doi

  46. [60]

    Paul, L. A. (2012). Metaphysics as Modeling: The Handmaiden’s Tale. Philosophical Studies, 160 (1), pp. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9906-7

    2012 doi

  47. [61]

    Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth , Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203979648

    1999 doi

  48. [62]

    (2005), Scientific Realism and Metaphysics

    Psillos, S. (2005), Scientific Realism and Metaphysics. Ratio, 18 (4), pp. 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9329.2005.00301.x

    2005

  49. [63]

    Ritchie, J. (2022). On the Continuity of Metaphysics with Science: Some Scepticism and Some Suggestions. Metaphilosophy, 53 (1–2), pp. 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12547

    2022 doi

  50. [64]

    (2020): Metaphysics as a Fiction, in Armour-Garb, B

    Rosen, G. (2020): Metaphysics as a Fiction, in Armour-Garb, B. & Kroon, F. (Eds.), Fictionalism in Philosophy . Oxford University

    2020

  51. [65]

    Press, Oxford, pp. 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190689605.003.0002

  52. [66]

    Saatsi, J. (2017). Explanation and Explanationism in Science and Metaphysics. In Slater, M. H. &

    2017

  53. [68]

    Saatsi, J. (2019). Scientific realism meets metaphysics of quantum mechanics. In Cordero, A. (Ed.), Philosophers look at quantum mechanics

    2019

  54. [69]

    Springer, Cham, pp. 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15659-6_10

    doi

  55. [70]

    Schindler, S. (2018). Theoretical Virtues in Science: Uncovering Reality through Theory , Cambridge University

    2018

  56. [71]

    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108381352

    Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108381352

    doi

  57. [72]

    Stanford, P. K. (2017). So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish: Metaphysics and the Philosophy of 26 Science. In Slater, M. H. & Yudell, Z. (Eds.), Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science: New Essays . Oxford University

    2017

  58. [73]

    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199363209.003.0007

    Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199363209.003.0007

  59. [74]

    Thagard, P. R. (1978). The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice, The Journal of Philosophy , 75, pp. 76–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025686 Van Fraassen, B. C. (1991). Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View . Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198...

    1978 doi

  60. [75]

    Wilson, A. (2020). The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism, Oxford University

    2020

  61. [76]

    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846215.001.0001 27

    Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846215.001.0001 27

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.