0
Scientific Realism makes three kinds of claims:
1. Metaphysical - There is an external world that is mind-independent.
2. Semantic – ex. “Should scientific claims be construed literally?”
3. Epistemological – Scientific theories are approximately true
“The positive argument for scientific realism is that it is the only philosophy that doesn’t make the success of science a miracle” – Hillary Putnam
The No-Miracles Argument
P1. Science is extremely successful
P2. Scientific realism provides a better explanation for the success of science than any rival theory.
C. We should believe the philosophy of science that best explains the facts about science
Scientific realism simply applies to science as a whole the same methods that scientists themselves use. An inference the best explanation, which is often used in science itself. Scientific realism says mature scientific theories are approximately true. What does it mean to say that a theory is true?
Problems for scientific realism
Problem 1. Even if realism best explains success, it may not explain other facts, such as theory change.
Is realism the best explanation for the success of science? And if it is the best explanation, is that a good reason?
Problem 2. The use of Inference to the best explanation assumes realism, so an argument in favor of realism simply begs the question.
If the anti-realist is right, IBE cannot be assumed to lead to true explanations. If the anti-realist is right, IBE merely leads to acceptable explanations. But the No-Miracles Argument uses IBE to infer the truth of theories. Such theories are merely empirically adequate. If what a theory says about the observable parts of the world is true, then that theory is empirically adequate.
Response: The No-Miracles Argument does not rest on the assumption that the best explanation is the true one, but that it only rests on the assumption that we should accept the best explanation. It’s just that accepting the best explanation entails truth in this case.
The realist claims the best explanation of the success of science is that mature scientific theories are approximately true. We don’t need to say this explanation is true, but that we should accept this explanation as true (believe it), merely accepting the explanation itself entails realism.
“It is true that our best scientific theories are approximately true” – Circular Argumentation.
“We should accept that our best scientific theories are approximately true” - Not Circular.
Anti-realists deny that IBE leads to the true explanation. They merely hold that it leads to acceptable explanations, that are empirically adequate, in comporting with observable phenomena. Anti-realists, like constructive empiricists, hold that there is no need to postulate truth, and that anti-realist views are just as empirically adequate as the realist views.
Bookmarks