Next week, on Friday, 22 June 2012, I will give a talk on Putnam’s work on the interpretation of quantum mechanics at the 5th Lauener Symposium on Analytical Philosophy honouring Putnam’s work. The program can be found here. For some reason, I can’t get a direct URL, so you will have to click “Awards/Symposium 2012”, and then “5th Lauener Symposium”.
Here is an abstract of the talk:
Hilary Putnam (1965, 2005) has argued that from a realist perspective, quantum mechanics stands in need of an interpretation. Ironically, this hypothesis may appear vulnerable against arguments drawing on Putnam’s own work. Nancy Cartwright has recently urged that his 1962 essay on the meaning of theoretical terms suggests that quantum mechanics needs no interpretation and thus stands in tension with his claim of three years later. She furthermore contends that this conflict should be resolved in favour of the earlier work, as quantum mechanics, like all successful theories, does not need an interpretation. The first–longer–part of the talk deflates both of these objections. The second part addresses and evaluates Putnam’s own assessments of the main interpretative options available in 1965 and 2005. Although we may disagree on some aspects, his pessimistic conclusion will come out largely unscathed. I will close by briefly stating the historical relevance of this work.