Ruetsche on the pristine and adulterated in quantum eld theory∗

It might seem that philosophy of science has fallen on hard times. When not being pilloried by famous scientists, philosophy of science receives scant attention from the educated public. is is not to say that work in philosophy of science is not žourishing; but surely what is žourishing most — in terms of number of jobs, number of publications, etc. — is the philosophy of the specic sciences, such as physics, biology, etc.. So does “general philosophy of science” have a future? Will that subject cease to exist, to be completely replaced by philosophical investigation of the specic sciences? Judging by its title, Laura Ruetsche’s book Interpreting Quantum eories would seem to conrm the trend towards fragmentation in philosophy of science. And indeed, the book does discuss quantum theory in great detail and depth; it would certainly make for di›cult reading for somebody with no college-level training in physics. But if you thought that Ruetsche’s book adds another nail to the co›n of general philosophy of science, then you thought wrong. Ruetsche’s book is set apart from many of the recent books of the philosophy of physics, not only in its engagement with the quantum theory of innite systems (including quantum eld theory), but also in its explicit engagement with questions from general philosophy of science. In fact, while Ruetsche does much to advance our understanding of the quantum theory of innite systems, her challenge to the “received view” of what it means to interpret a scientic theory will be of interest to anyone working in any sub-eld of philosophy of science. e claim that general philosophy of science has something to say for foundational work in the particular sciences was defended by Larry Sklar in his book eory and Truth. Similarly, philosophers such as Arthur Fine and Bas van Fraassen have argued that work on the foundations of physics bears directly on the big questions in general philosophy of science (e.g. realism vs. antirealism). Ruetsche’s book continues in the tradition of Sklar, Fine, and van Fraassen, but with perhaps the most sophisticated engagement with mathematical physics that we have ever seen in a “philosophical”monograph. Tomyknowledge, nomonographhas ever contained both the phrases “nomiracles