English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Hilary Putnam (1965, 2005) has argued that from a realist perspective,quantum mechanics stands in need of an interpretation. Ironically, thishypothesis may appear vulnerable against arguments drawing on Putnam's ownwork. Nancy Cartwright (2005) has urged that his 1962 essay on the meaning oftheoretical terms suggests that quantum mechanics needs no interpretation andthus stands in tension with his claim of three years later. She furthermorecontends that this conflict should be resolved in favour of the earlier work,as quantum mechanics, like all successful theories, does not need aninterpretation. The first part of this essay deflates both of these objections.The second part addresses and evaluates Putnam's own assessments of the maininterpretative options available in 1965 and 2005. Although we may disagree onsome aspects, his pessimistic conclusion will come out largely unscathed, and,in fact, enhanced. I will close by briefly stating the historical relevance ofthis work.

Putnam looks at quantum mechanics (again and again)