(And why representational metaphysics is the real threat to scientific practice)
One of the most knee-jerk misunderstandings of relational ontology is the accusation that it somehow undermines, dismisses, or relativises science.
This charge is usually made by people who equate science with a very particular metaphysics:
objectivist realism
mirror-theory of knowledge
representational models as metaphysical truths
a belief that “the world” is simply “out there” waiting to be mirrored
Let’s cut the confusion.
1. Science Is Already Relational — Only Its Self-Description Is Representational
Every working scientist knows, in practice, that:
measurements are system-specific
models are perspectival
observation depends on apparatus
different methods carve different phenomena
concepts evolve with the communities that use them
data only exist within experimental cuts
None of this is controversial inside the lab.
The representational story (“we mirror reality”) is something scientists only say outside the lab — usually when cornered by philosophers.
Relational ontology simply formalises what scientific practice has already known for centuries:
Science is a disciplined way of constraining, coordinating, and stabilising relational cuts.
2. Representation Is the Weakest Part of Scientific Method, Not the Strongest
When realists accuse relational ontology of being anti-science, they are defending what they think science rests on:
“Scientific theories represent reality.”
In fact, clinging to representation yields a host of familiar puzzles:
What counts as the “real” structure of the world?
How exactly do models correspond to reality?
What does “correspondence” even mean?
How does mathematics map onto physical systems?
Why do multiple incompatible models work equally well?
How do we reconcile scale-specific models with “fundamental” ones?
These puzzles exist because representation is a conceptual dead end.
Relational ontology dissolves them by refusing the metaphor altogether.
3. Science Does Not Discover Pre-Cut Objects — It Constructs Systemic Cuts
A representational view says:
“Science reveals what’s already there.”
A relational view says:
“Science brings potential into a cut such that particular phenomena become stable and analysable.”
apparatus design
operational definitions
modelling practices
controlled interventions
semiotic tools
collaborative norms
technological infrastructures
Science does not mirror the world; it cuts it.
4. Relational Ontology Strengthens Objectivity — It Doesn’t Weaken It
Representational realists conflate objectivity with:
neutrality
detachment
correspondence
view-from-nowhere epistemology
But objectivity in scientific practice is none of these.
Objectivity is:
robustness across methods
reproducibility across perspectives
coherence across scales and contexts
stability across different apparatuses
constraint across communities
This is exactly what relational ontology formalises:
Objectivity is cross-perspectival stability produced by disciplined, coordinated cuts in semiotic and material systems.
5. Relational Ontology Appears Anti-Science Only to Those Who Mistake Metaphysics for Method
Those who accuse relational ontology of being anti-science are usually defending something scientific practice does not require:
foundational objects
metaphysical realism
intrinsic properties
mind-independent truths encoded in language
fixed ontological categories
6. Relational Ontology Actually Makes Sense of Difficult Scientific Terrains That Realism Cannot Handle
Our readers already know this, but it’s worth listing explicitly.
The relational cut perspective handles:
quantum measurement without collapsing into observer mysticism
biology as constraints and affordances rather than encoded “information”
cognitive science without an inner theatre
ecology as patterns of co-individuation
complex systems without reductionism
neuroscience without representational neuro-myths
social science without psychologism or “inner” mental structures
7. Summary for the Online Commenter Who Types “LOL SO YOU’RE SAYING WE CAN JUST MAKE UP PHYSICS?”
Science is relational in practice, representational only in outdated metaphysics.
Relational ontology provides a better model of how science works.
It strengthens objectivity by grounding it in cross-perspectival constraint.
It eliminates representational puzzles entirely.
It does not say “anything goes” — it says “cuts are disciplined and system-constrained”.
It explains scientific method more coherently than any realist metaphysics.
To put it cleanly:
Relational ontology is not anti-science.It is what scientific practice looks like once freed from metaphysical superstition.
No comments:
Post a Comment