David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 63 (2):253 - 291 (2005)
There is good reason to believe that, if it can be decided at all, the realism debate must be decided on a posteriori grounds. But at least prima facie the prospects for an a posteriori resolution of the debate seem bleak, given that realists and antirealists disagree over two of the most fundamental questions pertaining to any kind of empirical research, to wit, what the range of accessible evidence is and what the methodological status of explanatory considerations is. The present paper aims to show that, while the difficulties that face an empirical approach to the realism debate are not to be discounted, they are not insurmountable either. Specifically, it presents a broadly Bayesian strategy for resolving the debate that is capable of solving those difficulties. The strategy crucially involves answers to the aforementioned questions that diverge from both the standard realist and the standard antirealist answers, but that should appear more natural and plausible than those to realists and antirealists alike.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Epistemology Ethics Logic Ontology|
|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
Peter Lipton (2004). Inference to the Best Explanation. Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
Clark Glymour (1980). Theory and Evidence. Princeton University Press.
Michael Devitt (1991). Realism and Truth. B. Blackwell.
Citations of this work BETA
Wouter Meijs & Igor Douven (2007). On the Alleged Impossibility of Coherence. Synthese 157 (3):347 - 360.
Igor Douven (2007). Fitch's Paradox and Probabilistic Antirealism. Studia Logica 86 (2):149 - 182.
James Ladyman (2005). Wouldn't It Be Lovely: Explanation and Scientific Realism. [REVIEW] Metascience 14 (3):331-361.
Igor Douven (2009). Can the Skepticism Debate Be Resolved? Synthese 168 (1):23 - 52.
Similar books and articles
Yemima Ben-Menahem (1990). The Inference to the Best Explanation. Erkenntnis 33 (3):319-44.
Stathos Psillos (2000). The Present State of the Scientific Realism Debate. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (4):705-728.
Timothy D. Lyons (2012). Axiological Scientific Realism and Methodological Prescription. In Henk W. de Regt (ed.), Epsa Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. Springer 187--197.
Gerald Doppelt (2005). Empirical Success or Explanatory Success: What Does Current Scientific Realism Need to Explain? Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1076-1087.
André Kukla (1998). Studies in Scientific Realism. Oxford University Press.
Timothy D. Lyons (2009). Non-Competitor Conditions in the Scientific Realism Debate. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (1):65-84.
Andrew Sneddon (2009). Normative Ethics and the Prospects of an Empirical Contribution to Assessment of Moral Disagreement and Moral Realism. Journal of Value Inquiry 43 (4):447-455.
Stephen Leeds (2007). Correspondence Truth and Scientific Realism. Synthese 159 (1):1 - 21.
Andre Kukla (1996). Antirealist Explanations of the Success of Science. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):305.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads155 ( #23,298 of 1,796,321 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #60,056 of 1,796,321 )
How can I increase my downloads?