Graduate studies at Western
Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 101 (1):269-292 (2012)
|Abstract||This paper critically reviews Philip Kitcher's most recent epistemology of science, real realism . I argue that this view is unstable under different understandings of the term 'representation', and that the arguments offered for the position are either unsound or invalid depending on the understanding employed. Suitably modified those arguments are however convincing in favor of a deflationary version of real realism, which I refer to as the bare view . The bare view accepts Kitcher's Galilean strategy, and the ensuing commitment to the existence of unobservables; but it does not trade on a correspondence or copy theory of representation. So the bare view, unlike real realism, does not entail that our representations match reality even approximately|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Matteo Morganti (2004). On the Preferability of Epistemic Structural Realism. Synthese 142 (1):81--107.
Philip Kitcher (2001). Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy. Philosophical Review 110 (2):151-197.
Howard Sankey (2004). Scientific Realism and the God's Eye Point of View. Epistemologia 27 (2):211-226.
Stathis Psillos (2005). Scientific Realism and Metaphysics. Ratio 18 (4):385–404.
George Graham & Terence E. Horgan (1988). How to Be Realistic About Folk Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 1 (1):69-81.
P. D. Magnus (2003). Success, Truth and the Galilean Strategy. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (3):465-474.
Added to index2009-10-02
Total downloads46 ( #28,165 of 739,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)20 ( #6,454 of 739,304 )
How can I increase my downloads?