Otras publicaciones:



Otras publicaciones:




Ainsworth, P. (2009). Newman’s objection. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60:135–171.

Bohr, N. (1988[1961]) El cuando de acción y la descripción de la Naturaleza. Madrid: Alianza

Borge, B. (2013a), Realismo científico y teoría de la referencia: una crítica al descriptivismo causal de Stathis Psillos. En: Epistemología e Historia de la Ciencia, Selección de Trabajos de las XXXIII Jornadas, vol. 19, (pp. 63 – 69), Córdoba: FFyH. UNC.

Borge, B. (2013b) “Realismo científico y referencia directa”.Mutatis Mutandis Revista Internacional de Filosofía Nº 1 (pp. 35-47).

Borge, B. (en prensa) “Modelos y representación en el Estructuralismo Empirista de Bas van Faassen”. Praxis Filosófica.

Boyd, R. N., (1989), What Realism Implies and What it Does Not, Dialectica 43: 5–29.

Busch, J., (2003). What structures could not be, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17: 211–225.

Carnap, R (1960), Meaning and Necessity, Enlarged Edition, Chicago:University of Chicago Press

Boyd, R. N. (1985 [1966]) Fundamentación logica de la física (trad. de Néstor Miguens) Barcelona:Alianza

Cassirer, E. (1936) Determinism and Indeterminism in Modern Physics, Yale :University Press.

Chakravartty, A. (1998). Semirealism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 29(3), 391-408.

Chakravartty, A. (2003). The structuralist conception of objects. Philosophy of Science, 70(5), 867–878.

Chakravartty, A. (2007). A metaphysics for scientific realism: Knowing the unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Contessa, G. (2010) Empiricist Structuralism, Metaphysical Realism, and the Bridging Problem. Analysis Reviews 70(3): 514–524.

Demopoulos, W. and Friedman, M. (1985). “Critical notice: Bertrand Russell’s The Analysis of Matter: Its historical context and contemporary interest.” Philosophy of Science 52: 621–639. Reprinted in C.W. Savage and C.A. Anderson (eds.), (1989), Rereading Russell: Essays on Bertrand Russell’s Metaphysics and Epistemology (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Volume XII). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Duhem, P. M. M., (1954 [1906]), The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, P. P. Wiener (tr.), Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Enć, B. (1976) Reference of theoretical terms. Noûs 10.

French, S. (1989) Identity and Individuality in Classical and Quantum Physics, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67: 432–46.

French, S. (1998) ‘On the Withering Away of Physical Objects’, in E. Castellani (ed.), Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 93–113.

French, S. (2006) Structure as a weapon of the realist. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 106(1), 169–187.

French, S. and Krause, D. (1995). A formal approach to quantum non-individuality. Synthese 102, 195–214.

French, S. and Krause, D. (2006). Identity in physics: A historical philosophical, and formal analysis. Oxford: Clarendon.

French, S. and Ladyman, J. (1999). Reinflating the semantic approach. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 13: 103–121.

French, S. and Ladyman, J. (2003a). “Remodelling structural realism: Quantum physics and the metaphysics of structure.” Synthese, 136: 31–56.

French, S. and Ladyman, J. (2003b). “Between platonism and phenomenalism: Reply to Cao.” Synthese, 136: 73–78.

Frigg, R. & Votsis, I. (2011). Everything you always wanted to know about structural realism but were afraid to ask. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (2):227-276.

Gower, B. (2000). Cassirer, Schlick and ‘structural’ realism: The philosophy of the exact sciences in the background to early logical empiricism. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 8: 71–106.

Hacking, I., (1982), Experimentation and Scientific Realism, Philosophical Topics, 13: 71–87.

Hacking, I., (1983), Representing and Intervening, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hawthorne, J. (2001) Causal structuralism, Philosophical Perspectives, 15: 361-378.

James, W. (1979[1907]) Pragmatism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.

Ketland, J. (2004). Empirical adequacy and Ramsification. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(2), 287–300.

Kitcher, P., (1993), The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kukla, A., (1998). Studies in Scientific Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Laudan, L., (1981) “A Confutation of Convergent Realism” Philosophy of Science, 48: 19–48.

Laudan, L. and Leplin, J. (1991). Empirical equivalence and underdetermination. Journal of Philosophy, 88: 269–85

Ladyman, J. (1998). What is structural realism?. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 29(3), 409-424.

Ladyman, J. and Ross, D. (with Spurrett, D. and Collier, J.) (2007). Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalised, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leitgeb, H., & Ladyman, J. (2008). Criteria of identity and structuralist ontology. Philosophia Mathematica, 16, 388–396.

Lipton, P., (1994), ‘Truth, Existence, and the Best Explanation’, in A. A. Derksen (ed.), The Scientific Realism of Rom Harré, Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Lyons, T. D., 2003, ‘Explaining the Success of a Scientific Theory’, Philosophy of Science, 70: 891–901.

Mach, E., (1886) “The Economical Natura of Physical Inquiry”, en Popular Scientific Lectures, La Salle, III: Open Court

Magnus, P. D. and Callender, C. (2004) Realist ennui and the base rate fallacy. Philosophy of Science, 71: 320-38

Maxwell, G. (1968). Scientific methodology and the causal theory of perception. In I. Lakatos & A.Musgrave(Eds.), Problems in the philosophy of science. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

Maxwell, G. (1970). “Structural realism and the meaning of theoretical terms”. In S. Winokur & M. Radner(Eds.), Analyses of theories, and methods of physics and psychology (pp. 181–192). Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

McMullin, E. (1990). “Comment: Duhem’s middle way.” Synthese, 83: 421–430.

Melia, J. & J. Saatsi, (2006) Ramseyfication and Theoretical Content. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57: 561–585.

Molnar, G. (2003) Powers: A Study in Metaphysics, S. Mumford (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University

Morganti, M. (2004). On the preferability of epistemic structural realism. Synthese, 142(1), 81–107.

Mumford, S. (1998) Dispositions, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Mumford, S., (2004), Laws in Nature, London: Routledge

Mumford, S. and Anjum, R. (2011). Getting Causes from Powers Oxford: Oxford University Press

Newman, M.H.A. (1928). “Mr. Russell’s causal theory of perception.” Mind, 37: 137–148.

Niiniluoto, I., (1987), Truthlikeness, Dordrecht: Reidel.

Niiniluoto, I. (1998), ‘Verisimilitude: The Third Period’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 49: 1–29.

Niiniluoto, I .(1999), Critical Scientific Realism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Osiander, A. (1987 [1545)] “Al lector sobre las hipótesis de esta obra”, en Copérnico, Sobre las revoluciones (de los orbes celestes), (trad. Carlos Mínguez), Madrid: Tecnos, 1987, libro I, pp. 32-33.

Post, H. (1971). Correspondence invariance and heuristics. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 2(3), 213–255.

Psillos, S., (1995), ‘Is Structural Realism the Best of Both Worlds?’, Dialectica, 49: 15–46.

Psillos, S. (1996), ‘On van Fraassen’s Critique of Abductive Reasoning’, Philosophical Quarterly, 46: 31–47.

Psillos, S. (1999), Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth, London: Routledge.

Psillos, S. (2001), ‘Is Structural Realism Possible?’, Philosophy of Science, 68: S13–S24.

Psillos, S. (2006), The, Structure, the Whole, Structure and Nothing But, the Structure?, Philosophy of Science, 73: 560–570.

Psillos, S. (2012). “Causal descriptivism and the reference of theoretical terms.” En: Perception, realism, and the problem of reference, Athanassios Raftopoulos y Peter Machamer eds, 212–238. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Poincaré, H. ([1946]1913) The Value of Science, translated by George B. Halsted, in H. Poincaré, The Foundations of Science: Science and Hypothesis, The Value of Science, and Science and Method, Lancaster, PA: The Science Press.

Poincaré, H. ([1952]1905) Science and Hypothesis, New York: Dover

Post, H. (1971). Correspondence invariance and heuristics. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 2(3), 213–255.

Putnam, H. (1975), Mathematics, Matter and Method, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Putnam, H. (1978). Putnam, H. Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Putnam, H. (1999), The Threefold Chord: Mind, Body, and World, New York: Columbia University Press.

Redhead, M. (2001). ‘Quests of a realist’, review article of Stathis Psillos’s scientific realism: how science tracks truth. Metascience, 10(3), 341–347.

Russell, B. (1912) The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Russell, B. (1913 [1917]). On the notion of cause. In B. Russell, Mysticism and Logic, pp. 173–99. London: Unwin.

Russell, B. (1918). Mysticism and logic and other essays. London and New York: Longmans, Green.

Schlick, M. (1925) General Theory of Knowledge, translated by A.E. Blumberg and H. Feigl, New York: Springer-Verlag.

Suppe, F. (1977). The structure of scientific theories. Urbana and Chicago.

Tegmark, M., (2006) The Mathematical Universe. Foundations of Physics 38: 101–150.

Votsis, I. (2003). Is structure not enough? Philosophy of Science, 70(5), 879–890.

Votsis, I. (2004). The epistemological status of scientific theories: An investigation of the structural realist account. PhD Thesis, London School of Economics,

Votsis, I. (2011). “Structural realism: Continuity and its limits”. En: A. Bokulich & P. Bokulich (Eds.), Scientific structuralism (Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science) (pp. 105–117). Springer.

van Fraassen, B. C., (1980), The Scientific Image, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen, B. C. (1989) Laws and Symmetry, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

van Fraassen, B. C., (1997) ‘Structure and Perspective: Philosophical Perplexity and Paradox’ in M.L. Dalla Chiara et al. (eds.) Logic and Scientific Methods, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press,

van Fraassen, B. C. (1998). The agnostic subtly probabilified. Analysis, 58(3), 212-220.

van Fraassen, B. C., (2008). Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Worrall, J., (1989), Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?, Dialectica, 43: 99–124.

Worrall, J. (1994). How to Remain (Reasonably) Optimistic: Scientific Realism and the” Luminiferous Ether”. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (pp. 334-342). Philosophy of Science Association.

Worrall, J., & Zahar, E. (2001). “Ramseyfication and structural realism. Appendix IV” En: Zahar E. Poincaré’s Philosophy: From Conventionalism to Phenomenology. Chicago and La Salle (IL): Open Court.

Wray, K. B., (2010), Selection and Predictive Success, Erkenntnis, 72: 365–377.

Zahar, E. (1973) Why did Einstein’s Programme Supersede Lorentz’s?, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 24: 95-123.

Zahar, E. (1996) ‘Poincaré’s Structural Realism and his Logic of Discovery’, in Jean-Louis Greffe, Gerhard Heinzmann and Kuno Lorenz (eds.) Henri Poincaré: Science and Philosophy, Berlin: Academie Verlag and Paris: Albert Blanchard.

Zahar, E. (2001) Poincaré’s Philosophy: From Conventionalism to Phenomenology, Chicago and La Salle (IL): Open Court.

Zahar, E. (2004). Ramseyfication and structural realism. Theoria, 19, 5–30.

Deja un comentario