-
Metaphysics for Empiricists
Cartwright published her first book, controversial and much discussed, in which she proposed a sense in which metaphysics could be respectable to empiricists. For a while, empiricists thought since empiricism was traditionally anti-metaphysics, it also had to be anti-realist. With this, scientific realism can no longer be dismissed by empiricists on the grounds of venturing into metaphysics. -
Fundamental Laws Gone Wrong
Cartwright also stated that fundamental laws of physics do not describe true facts about reality. That when they are rendered as descriptions of facts they're false. She also states that they should give a correct amount of what happens when they’re applied in specific circumstances in order to be true, but they do not. She identified that by following their consequences, fundamental laws are generally found to go wrong but are put right by the judicious corrections of the researcher. -
Capacities
Cartwright said the casual claims of science aren’t reports of regularities but ascriptions of capacities to make things happen. She believed these capacities were a fundamental aspect of physical reality and arrive at the need for capacities by looking at the laws and the methods/uses of science. She goes on to explain that the characteristics of capacities may evolve naturally through time and may be changed in systematic ways as a consequence of other factors in nature they’ve reacted with. -
Interpretive vs Representative
Cartwright explains the world is mediated by interpretive and representative models. Interpretive laid out within the theory itself and allowing us to understand its laws by providing concrete representations of the abstract formalism, and representative that represent phenomena but go beyond particular theory the way they're constructed. She has also argued that high-level laws either lie if construed representationally or should be construed non-representationally as a tool for model building. -
When to Trust Science?
Cartwright's examination in our criticisms and our trust in science. Debate Link
