Why the no-miracles argument fails
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (3):263 – 279 (1998)
| Abstract | The chief argument for scientific realism is the no-miracles argument, according to which the approximate truth of our current scientific theories can be inferred from their success through time. To date, anti-realist responses to the argument have been unconvincing, largely because of their anti-realistic presuppositions. In this paper, it is shown that realists cannot pre-emptively dismiss the problem of the underdetermination of theory by evidence, and that the no-miracles argument fails because it does nothing to dispel the threat posed by underdetermination, although it may be effective against other anti-realistic arguments. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSamir Okasha (2002). Underdetermination, Holism and the Theory/Data Distinction. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (208):303-319.
Michael Almeida (2007). Martin on Miracles. Philo 10 (1):27-34.
Mary Leng (2005). Platonism and Anti-Platonism: Why Worry? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 (1):65 – 84.
Moti Mizrahi (2012). Why the Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism Ultimately Fails. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1):132-138.
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-02-01Total downloads47 ( #23,605 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #16,099 of 556,837 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
