|Abstract||According to the no miracles argument, scientific realism provides the only satisfactory explanation of the predictive success of science. It is argued in the present article that a different explanatory strategy, based on the posit of limitations to the underdetermination of scientific theory building by the available empirical data, offers a more convincing understanding of scientific success.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Richard Otte (1990). Scientific Realism, Perceptual Beliefs, and Justification. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:393 - 404.
Martin Carrier (2011). Underdetermination as an Epistemological Test Tube: Expounding Hidden Values of the Scientific Community. Synthese 180 (2):189 - 204.
Ilkka Niiniluoto (2007). Abduction and Scientific Realism. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 12:137-142.
Gerald Doppelt (2005). Empirical Success or Explanatory Success: What Does Current Scientific Realism Need to Explain? Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1076-1087.
John D. Norton (forthcoming). Must Evidence Underdetermine Theory. The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice:17--44.
Seungbae Park (2009). Philosophical Responses to Underdetermination in Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 40 (1):115 - 124.
Carl Matheson (1998). Why the No-Miracles Argument Fails. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (3):263 – 279.
Richard Dawid (2007). Scientific Realism in the Age of String Theory. Physics and Philosophy.
Samir Okasha (2002). Underdetermination, Holism and the Theory/Data Distinction. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (208):303-319.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads51 ( #24,373 of 722,777 )
Recent downloads (6 months)19 ( #6,862 of 722,777 )
How can I increase my downloads?