David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 177 (1):111 - 138 (2010)
The No-Miracles Argument (NMA) is often used to support scientific realism. We can formulate this argument as an inference to the best explanation this accusation of circularity by appealing to reliabilism, an externalist epistemology. In this paper I argue that this retreat fails. Reliabilism suffers from a potentially devastating difficulty known as the Generality Problem and attempts to solve this problem require adopting both epistemic and metaphysical assumptions regarding local scientific theories. Although the externalist can happily adopt the former, if he adopts the latter then the Generality Problem arises again, but now at the level of scientific methodology. Answering this new version of the Generality Problem is impossible for the scientific realist without making the important further assumption that there exists the possibility of a unique rule of Doing this however would make the NMA viciously premise circular
|Keywords||Scientific realism Reliabilism No Miracles Argument Inference to the best explanation Generality problem|
|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
William Alston (2005). Beyond Justification: Dimensions of Epistemic Evaluation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
William P. Alston (1995). How to Think About Reliability. Philosophical Topics 23 (1):1-29.
D. M. Armstrong (1973). Belief, Truth and Knowledge. London,Cambridge University Press.
Max Black (1958). Self-Supporting Inductive Arguments. Journal of Philosophy 55 (17):718-725.
Laurence BonJour (1985). The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Harvard University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
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.
Similar books and articles
Michael A. Bishop (2010). Why the Generality Problem is Everybody's Problem. Philosophical Studies 151 (2):285 - 298.
James Beebe (2004). The Generality Problem, Statistical Relevance and the Tri-Level Hypothesis. Noûs 38 (1):177 - 195.
Klemens Kappel (2006). A Diagnosis and Resolution to the Generality Problem. Philosophical Studies 127 (3):525 - 560.
Stathis Psillos (2011). The Scope and Limits of the No Miracles Argument1. In Dennis Dieks, Wenceslao Gonzalo, Thomas Uebel, Stephan Hartmann & Marcel Weber (eds.), Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation. Springer. 23--35.
Jonathan Adler & Michael Levin (2002). Is the Generality Problem Too General? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (1):87-97.
Michael Levin (2002). Is the Generality Problem Too General? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (1):87 - 97.
Earl Conee (2013). The Specificity of the Generality Problem. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):751-762.
Juan Comesaña (2006). A Well-Founded Solution to the Generality Problem. Philosophical Studies 129 (1):27 - 47.
Valeriano Iranzo (2008). Reliabilism and the Abductive Defence of Scientific Realism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 39 (1):115 - 120.
Added to index2009-07-29
Total downloads63 ( #27,039 of 1,139,978 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #21,994 of 1,139,978 )
How can I increase my downloads?