David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42 (2):285-293 (2011)
Stanford, in Exceeding Our Grasp , presents a powerful version of the pessimistic meta-induction. He claims that theories typically have empirically inequivalent but nonetheless well-confirmed, serious alternatives which are unconceived. This claim should be uncontroversial. But it alone is no threat to scientific realism. The threat comes from Stanford’s further crucial claim, supported by historical examples, that a theory’s unconceived alternatives are “radically distinct” from it; there is no “continuity”. A standard realist reply to the meta-induction is that past failures do not imply present ones because present theories are more successful than past ones. I have preferred to emphasize that present methodology is better than past ones. Stanford’s response to the standard reply is surprisingly brief and inadequate. He defends the inference from the uncontroversial claim but not that from the crucial one. He does not show that past discontinuity implies present discontinuity. Realism survives
|Keywords||Stanford Scientific realism Unconceived alternatives Pessimistic meta-induction Methodology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Jacob Busch (2006). Entity Realism Meets the Pessimistic Meta-Induction – The World is Not Enough. SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy 7 (106):26.
Michael Devitt (1991). Aberrations of the Realism Debate. Philosophical Studies 61 (1-2):43--63.
Michael Devitt (2009). On Determining What There Isn't. In Dominic Murphy & Michael A. Bishop (eds.), Stich and His Critics. Blackwell.
Michael Devitt (2010). Putting Metaphysics First: Essays on Metaphysics and Epistemology. Oxford University Press.
Michael Devitt (2005). Scientific Realism. In Frank Jackson & Michael Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Moti Mizrahi (2013). The Pessimistic Induction: A Bad Argument Gone Too Far. Synthese 190 (15):3209-3226.
Emma Ruttkamp-Bloem (2013). Re-Enchanting Realism in Debate with Kyle Stanford. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 44 (1):201-224.
Similar books and articles
Ludwig Fahrbach (2011). How the Growth of Science Ends Theory Change. Synthese 180 (2):139 - 155.
P. D. Magnus (2010). Inductions, Red Herrings, and the Best Explanation for the Mixed Record of Science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (4):803-819.
David Harker (2008). P. Kyle Stanford:Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives,:Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Philosophy of Science 75 (2):251-253.
P. Kyle Stanford (2009). Scientific Realism, the Atomic Theory, and the Catch-All Hypothesis: Can We Test Fundamental Theories Against All Serious Alternatives? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (2):253-269.
P. Kyle Stanford (2006). Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford University Press.
P. Kyle Stanford (2006). Francis Galton's Theory of Inheritance and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Biology and Philosophy 21 (4):523-536.
P. K. Stanford (2006). Darwin's Pangenesis and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (1):121-144.
Anjan Chakravartty (2008). What You Don't Know Can't Hurt You: Realism and the Unconceived. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 137 (1):149 - 158.
Added to index2009-07-04
Total downloads296 ( #1,251 of 1,100,145 )
Recent downloads (6 months)75 ( #805 of 1,100,145 )
How can I increase my downloads?