A selectionist explanation for the success and failures of science

Erkenntnis 67 (1):81 - 89 (2007)
I argue that van Fraassen’s selectionist explanation for the success of science is superior to the realists’ explanation. Whereas realists argue that our current theories are successful because they accurately reflect the structure of the world, the selectionist claims that our current theories are successful because unsuccessful theories have been eliminated. I argue that, unlike the explanation proposed by the realist, the selectionist explanation can also account for the failures of once successful theories and the fact that sometimes two competing theories are both equally successful.
Keywords Realism  Instrumentalism  Selectionist explanation  van Fraassen  Scientific success  Predictive accuracy
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,217
External links
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

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Seungbae Park (2016). Realism Versus Surrealism. Foundations of Science 21 (4):603-614.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

116 ( #37,535 of 1,941,076 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

4 ( #225,913 of 1,941,076 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.