David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):317 – 326 (2008)
The anti-realist argument from underconsideration focuses on the fact that, when scientists evaluate theories, they only ever consider a subset of the theories that can account for the available data. As a result, when scientists judge one theory to be superior to competitor theories, they are not warranted in drawing the conclusion that the superior theory is likely true with respect to what it says about unobservable entities and processes. I defend the argument from underconsideration from the objections of Peter Lipton. I argue that the inconsistency that Lipton claims to find in the argument vanishes once we understand what the anti-realist means when she claims that scientists are reliable. I also argue that collapsing the distinction between relative and absolute evaluations, as Lipton recommends, has its costs. Finally, I briefly examine Richard Boyd's influential defence of realism.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Larry Laudan (1984). Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. University of California Press.
Richard N. Boyd (1983). On the Current Status of the Issue of Scientific Realism. Erkenntnis 19 (1-3):45 - 90.
Martin Carrier (1991). What is Wrong with the Miracle Argument??☆. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 22 (1):23-36.
Lawrence Sklar (1981). Do Unborn Hypotheses Have Rights? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62 (1):17.
Citations of this work BETA
K. Brad Wray (2013). Success and Truth in the Realism/Anti-Realism Debate. Synthese 190 (9):1719-1729.
Timothy D. Lyons (2009). Non-Competitor Conditions in the Scientific Realism Debate. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (1):65-84.
Moti Mizrahi (2013). The Argument From Underconsideration and Relative Realism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 27 (4):393-407.
K. Brad Wray (2012). Epistemic Privilege and the Success of Science. Noûs 46 (3):375-385.
K. Brad Wray (2010). Selection and Predictive Success. Erkenntnis 72 (3):365 - 377.
Similar books and articles
Carl Matheson (1998). Why the No-Miracles Argument Fails. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (3):263 – 279.
Imogen Dickie (2010). Negation, Anti-Realism, and the Denial Defence. Philosophical Studies 150 (2):161 - 185.
William Child (2007). Dreaming, Calculating, Thinking: Wittgenstein and Anti-Realism About the Past. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (227):252–272.
William Seager (1988). Scientific Anti-Realism and the Epistemic Community. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:181-187.
E. C. Barnes (2002). The Miraculous Choice Argument for Realism. Philosophical Studies 111 (2):97 - 120.
Jacob Busch (2009). Underdetermination and Rational Choice of Theories. Philosophia 37 (1):55-65.
Marc Lange (2002). Baseball, Pessimistic Inductions and the Turnover Fallacy. Analysis 62 (4):281–285.
Peter Lipton (1993). Is the Best Good Enough? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 93:89 - 104.
Kareem Khalifa (2010). Default Privilege and Bad Lots: Underconsideration and Explanatory Inference. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (1):91 – 105.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads99 ( #45,906 of 1,940,985 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #272,533 of 1,940,985 )
How can I increase my downloads?