Abstract
In the literature over the Ramsey-sentence approach to structural realism, there is often debate over whether structural realists can legitimately restrict the range of the second-order quantifiers, in order to avoid the Newman problem. In this paper, I argue that even if they are allowed to, it won't help: even if the Ramsey sentence is interpreted using such restricted quantifiers, it is still an implausible candidate to capture a theory's structural content. To do so, I use the following observation: if a Ramsey sentence did encode a theory's structural content, then two theories would be structurally equivalent just in case they have logically equivalent Ramsey sentences. I then argue that this criterion for structural equivalence is implausible, even where frame or Henkin semantics are used.
| Item Type: | Journal article |
|---|---|
| Faculties: | Philosophy, Philosophy of Science and Religious Science |
| Subjects: | 100 Philosophy and Psychology > 100 Philosophy |
| ISSN: | 0165-0106 |
| Language: | English |
| Item ID: | 81798 |
| Date Deposited: | 15. Dec 2021 14:59 |
| Last Modified: | 15. Dec 2021 14:59 |
