Abstract

In the article I subject to criticism Field's argument, according to which field theory takes space-time to be a substance, since it ascribes field properties to space-time points. The fundamental flaw of this argument, I suggest, is the incompatibility of Field's interpretation of field theory with the way this theory is understood and utilized by its users, namely scientists. My criticism is based on the assumption that one cannot propose an ontology of a given scientific theory and at the same time imposing on it an interpretation which clashes with the interpretation current among its users. I also suggest that in order to establish the ontology of a scientific theory one should take into account not only the way it functions but also the way it has been constructed. According to this criterion, field theory does indeed take space-time to be a substance