ABSTRACT This paper examines whether grounding can be naturalized. We adopt a tripartite framework—O cat (scientific catalogue of existents), O typ (ontological types), and metaphysics (natures/modal profiles)—and show that classifying as such the relata of putative grounding claims forces a dilemma. When the relata belong to O cat , ‘ground’ merely paraphrases logical or scientific explanatory relations already available and adds no explanatory value. When they belong to O typ or to metaphysics, the relation floats free of scientific warrant and cannot be naturalized. Surveying canonical cases (Fine; Schaffer) and general programs (monism; ontic structural realism), we conclude that naturalistic grounds of grounding are unavailable: the notion is either otiose to the scientific discourse, adding nothing to it, or detrimental if competing with it.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Raoni Wohnrath Arroyo
Jonas R. Becker Arenhart
Ratio
Tohoku University
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Arroyo et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69c771dd8bbfbc51511e1f12 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.70025