|Abstract||Worrall () argued that structural realism provides a ‘synthesis’ of the main pro-realist argument – the ‘No Miracles Argument’, and the main anti-realist argument – the ‘Pessimistic Induction’. More recently, however, it has been claimed (Howson  and Lewis , respectively) that each of these arguments is an instance of the same probabilistic fallacy – sometimes called the ‘base-rate fallacy’. If correct, this clearly seems to undermine structural realism and Magnus and Callender have indeed claimed that both arguments are fallacious and ‘without [them] we lose the rationale for … structural realism’ (, p. 333). I here argue that what have been shown to be fallacious are simply misguided formalisations of ‘the’ arguments and that when they are properly (and modestly) construed they continue to provide powerful motivation for favouring structural realism.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Ioannis Votsis, The Epistemological Status of Scientific Theories: An Investigation of the Structural Realist Account.
Matteo Morganti (2004). On the Preferability of Epistemic Structural Realism. Synthese 142 (1):81--107.
Carl Matheson (1998). Why the No-Miracles Argument Fails. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (3):263 – 279.
Jack Ritchie (2008). Structural Realism and Davidson. Synthese 162 (1):85 - 100.
Daniel McArthur (2006). Recent Debates Over Structural Realism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 37 (2):209 - 224.
P. D. Magnus & Craig Callender (2004). Realist Ennui and the Base Rate Fallacy. Philosophy of Science 71 (3):320-338.
John Worrall (1989). Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds? Dialectica 43 (1-2):99-124.
Added to index2009-02-28
Total downloads253 ( #944 of 722,774 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #9,712 of 722,774 )
How can I increase my downloads?