Arguments For and Against Scientific Realism

Scientific realism (SR) emerged in the 1960s as a rival to logical positivism, and soon became the dominant position in philosophy of science. But by the 1990s it had encountered considerable critique and rivals of its own. Stathis Psillos set out to present a thorough, sustained defense of scientific realism in this book, a masterly achievement that still stands today not just as the presentation of a response to critics, but as a solid, coherent philosophical position of his own.

The problem of unconceived alternatives can be undermined, regardless of whether the possibility space of alternatives is bounded or unbounded. If it is bounded, pessimists need to justify their assumption that the probability that scientists have not yet eliminated enough false alternatives is higher than the probability that scientists have already eliminated enough false alternatives. If it is unbounded, pessimists need to justify their assumption that the probability that scientists have not yet moved from the possibility space of false alternatives (...) to the possibility space of true alternatives is higher than the probability that scientists have already moved from the former to the latter space. (shrink)

Review of The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism by Juha Saatsi (ed.).

Mizrahi’s argument against Stanford’s challenge to scientific realism is analyzed. Mizrahi’s argument is worth of attention for at least two reasons: unlike other criticisms that have been made to Stanford’s view so far, Mizrahi’s argument does not question any specific claim of Stanford’s argument, rather it puts into question the very coherence of Stanford’s position, because it argues that since Stanford’s argument rests on the problem of the unconceived alternatives, Stanford’s argument is self-defeating. Thus, if Mizrahi’s argument is effective in (...) countering Stanford’s view, it may be able to question the validity of other philosophical positions which similarly rest on the problem of the unconceived alternatives; Mizrahi’s argument against Stanford’s view is in part based on the development of a Stanford-like argument for the field of philosophy. This makes Mizrahi’s argument potentially relevant to the metaphilosophical debate. After careful examination, Mizrahi’s argument against Stanford’s instrumentalism is found wanting. Moreover, a Stanford-like argument is developed, which aims at challenging the metaphilosophical stance implied by Mizrahi’s argument against Stanford’s instrumentalism. (shrink)

L.A. Paul has recently defended the methodology of metaphysics on the grounds that it is continuous with the sciences. She claims that both scientists and metaphysicians use inference to the best explanation to choose between competing theories, and that the success of science vindicates the use of IBE in metaphysics. Specifically, the success of science shows that the theoretical virtues are truth-conducive. I challenge Paul’s claims on two grounds. First, I argue that, at least in biology, scientists adhere to the (...) vera causa ideal, which allows the theoretical virtues to play a much more limited role in scientific reasoning than Paul requires for metaphysical reasoning. The success of biology thus does not vindicate the methodology of metaphysics. Second, I argue that, at least in many cases, the successful reliance on the theoretical virtues in scientific contexts shows only that the theoretical virtues are truth-conducive within those local contexts, and not that they are truth-conducive generally. The upshots are that Paul’s defense of the methodology of metaphysics fails, and that any attempt to rescue her defense must pay more careful attention to what precisely is vindicated by successful science. (shrink)

It has become apparent that the debate between scientific realists and constructive empiricists has come to a stalemate. Neither view can reasonably claim to be the most rational philosophy of science, exclusively capable of making sense of all scientific activities. On one prominent analysis of the situation, whether we accept a realist or an anti-realist account of science actually seems to depend on which values we antecedently accept, rather than our commitment to “rationality” per se. Accordingly, several philosophers have attempted (...) to argue in favour of scientific realism or constructive empiricism by showing that one set of values is exclusively best, for anyone and everyone, and that the downstream choice of the philosophy of science which best serves those values is therefore best, for anyone and everyone. These efforts, however, seem to have failed. In response, I suggest that philosophers of science should suspend the effort to determine which philosophy of science is best for everyone, and instead begin investigating which philosophy of science is best for specific people, with specific values, in specific contexts. I illustrate how this might be done by briefly sketching a single case study from the history of science, which seems to show that different philosophies of science are better at motivating different forms of scientific practice. (shrink)

First, I answer the controversial question ’What is scientific realism?’ with extensive reference to the varied accounts of the position in the literature. Second, I provide an overview of the key developments in the debate concerning scientific realism over the past decade. Third, I provide a summary of the other contributions to this special issue.

A theory’s fertility is one of the standard theoretical virtues. But how is it to be construed? In current philosophical discourse, particularly in the realism debate, theoretical fertility is usually understood in terms of novel success: a theory is fertile if it manages to make successful novel predictions. Another, more permissible, notion of fertility can be found in the work of Ernan McMullin. This kind of fertility, McMullin claims, gives us just as strong grounds for realism. My paper critically assesses (...) McMullin’s notion of fertility and its realist rationale. It concludes that McMullin’s preferred example, namely the fertile development of the Bohr-Sommerfeld model of the atom, does not support McMullin’s argument for realism. Although the implications for the realism debate are as of yet unclear, the case study offers some important methodological lessons. (shrink)

Eric Barnes’ The Paradox of Predictivism is concerned primarily with two facts: predictivism and pluralism. In the middle part of the book, he peers through these two lenses at the tired realist scarecrow of the no-miracles argument. He attempts to reanimate this weatherworn realist argument, contra suggestions by people like me that it should be abandoned. In this paper, I want to get clear on Barnes’ contribution to the debate. He focuses on what he calls the miraculous endorsement argument, which (...) explains not the success of a specific theory but instead the history of successes for an entire research program. The history of successes is explained by reliable and improving methods, which are the flipside of approximately true background theories. Yet, as Barnes notes, the whole story must begin with methods that are at least minimally reliable. Barnes demands that the realist explain the origin of the minimally reliable take-off point, and he suggests a way that the realist might do so. I contend that his explanation still relies on contingent developments and so fails to completely explain the development of take-off theories. However, this line of argument digs into familiar details of the no-miracles argument and overlooks what’s new in Barnes’ approach. By calling attention to pluralism, he reminds us that we need an account of scientific expertise. This is important, I suggest, because expertise is not indefinite. We do not trust specific experts for everything, but only for things within the bounds of their expertise. Drawing these boundaries relies on our own background theories and is only likely to be reliable if our background theories are approximately true. I argue, then, that pluralism gives us reason to be realists. (shrink)

In this paper I wish to connect the recent debate in the philosophy of quantum mechanics concerning the nature of the wave function to the historical debate in the philosophy of science regarding the tenability of scientific realism. Being realist about quantum mechanics is particularly challenging when focusing on the wave function. According to the wave function ontology approach, the wave function is a concrete physical entity. In contrast, according to an alternative viewpoint, namely the primitive ontology approach, the wave (...) function does not represent physical entities. In this paper, I argue that the primitive ontology approach can naturally be interpreted as an instance of the so-called ‘explanationism’ realism, which has been proposed as a response to the pessimistic-meta induction argument against scientific realism. If my arguments are sound, then one could conclude that: (1) contrarily to what is commonly though, if explanationism realism is a good response to the pessimistic-meta induction argument, it can be straightforwardly extended also to the quantum domain; (2) the primitive ontology approach is in better shape than the wave function ontology approach in resisting the pessimistic-meta induction argument against scientific realism. (shrink)

Recently, Fahrbach and Park have argued that the pessimistic meta-induction about scientific theories is unsound. They claim that this very argument does not properly take into account scientific progress, particularly during the twentieth century. They also propose amended arguments in favour of scientific realism, which are supposed to properly reflect the history of science. I try to show that what I call the argument from scientific progress cannot explain satisfactorily why the current theories should have reached a degree of success (...) that excludes their future refutations and allows the inference to their truth. I further argue that this line of argumentation dismisses the burden of proof in a rather unfair manner by using a delaying tactic to postpone the question about the validity of the PMI in the future. (shrink)

A success-to-truth inference has always been at the heart of scientific realist positions. But all attempts to articulate the inference have met with very significant challenges. This paper reconstructs the evolution of this inference, and brings together a number of qualifications in an attempt to articulate a contemporary success-to-truth inference which is realistic. I argue that this contemporary version of the inference has a chance, at least, of overcoming the historical challenges which have been proffered to date. However, there is (...) a price to pay: the developments which help the realist answer the historical challenges also serve to increase the number of non-historical challenges. (shrink)

While we typically think of culture as defined by geography or ethnicity (e.g., American culture, Mayan culture), the term also applies to the practices and expectations of smaller groups of people. Though embedded in the larger culture surrounding them, such subcultures have their own sets of rules like those that scientists do. Philosophy of science has as its main object of studio the scientific activity. A way in which we have tried to explain these scientific practices is from the actual (...) ontological commitments that scientists do through their scientific theories. Certainly, we know scientific theories through some specific scientific language, which is, in its turn, a subset of the natural language developed by a particular culture. This study is conducted to explore and evaluate some of the most important epistemological consequences of these ontological commitments, specially the so-called ‘truth-commitment’ and its relation with a linguistic-cultural framework. There is an interesting debate between advocates and opponents of scientific realistic view of the natural world. Some lines of scientific realism argumentation assure that: (i) Mature scientific theories are approximately true. (ii) There are entities and organisms in the world that correspond with the ontology presupposed by the best scientific theories within a specific domain of scientific research and (iii) The new acceptable scientific theories should explain why past theories were successful predecessors (Colyvan 2008, Cocchiarella 2007 & Laudan 1981). Contrary, anti- realist positions ensure against the realist’s true - claim that is a semantic commitment - that the purpose of scientific theories to found the truth it is simple an unattainable goal, especially if the kind of truth they are looking for is a corresponding relation between scientific theories and the ontology of the world. Anti-realist positions held that this relation could be circular and unknowable. I do believe that there is a deep confusion between the way in which we accede to the knowledge of the constitutive structures, entities and organisms of the world (which is an epistemological matter) and the way these structures, entities and organisms are (which is an ontological matter). It seems that there is a bridge between the epistemological and ontological aspect in need for conceptual clarification. I do propose that the type of link between the two extremes have to be linguistic in nature. (shrink)

L’attitude réaliste constitue de prime abord la posture du sens commun vis-à-vis de la science. Elle consiste à attribuer à la science l’objectif de décrire littéralement la réalité tout en lui reconnaissant la capacité, en vertu de ses méthodes, d’atteindre ce but. Si le réalisme scientifique apparait comme représentant le sens commun, il a dû, au courant du siècle dernier, s’ériger en véritable posture philosophique argumentée devant l’influence grandissante des différentes formes d’antiréalismes. Dans la mesure où la posture qu’un philosophe (...) adopte concernant la prétention des théories scientifiques à décrire le réel a un impact sur son traitement d’à peu près toutes les questions pertinentes de son champ de recherche, on peut dire que l’examen de la question du réalisme scientifique est recommandable à quiconque souhaite mener une réflexion philosophique à propos de l’entreprise scientifique. Cet article débute sur la présentation des thèses fondamentales du réalisme scientifique pour ensuite le distinguer des autres postures réalistes et antiréalistes qui s’y sont opposées. Une fois les contours de la notion de réalisme scientifique précisés, il sera question des principales considérations qui ont été mises de l’avant en sa faveur et en sa défaveur. Le principal argument positif pour le réalisme scientifique est l’argument dit de l’absence de miracle. Au-delà de cet argument, tous les arguments du réalisme scientifique sont issus de répliques aux différents défis antiréalistes qui lui ont été lancés depuis la seconde moitié du 20e siècle. Il s’agira donc, par la suite, de présenter ces différents défis en identifiant les postures qui s’en réclament ainsi que les principales stratégies employées par les réalistes pour tenter de les relever. À la lumière de ce qui aura été présenté, l’article se conclut en interrogeant la distance qui sépare véritablement le réalisme scientifique de l’antiréalisme dans leurs formes contemporaines. (shrink)

This paper argues that scientific realism commits us to a metaphysical determination relation between the mathematical entities that are indispensible to scientific explanation and the modal structure of the empirical phenomena those entities explain. The argument presupposes that scientific realism commits us to the indispensability argument. The viewpresented here is that the indispensability of mathematics commits us not only to the existence of mathematical structures and entities but to a metaphysical determination relation between those entities and the modal structure of (...) the physical world. The no-miracles argument is the primary motivation for scientific realism. It is a presupposition of this argument that unobservable entities are explanatory only when they determine the empirical phenomena they explain. I argue that mathematical entities should also be seen as explanatory only when they determine the empirical facts they explain, namely, the modal structure of the physical world. Thus, scientific realism commits us to a metaphysical determination relation between mathematics and physical modality that has not been previously recognized. The requirement to account for the metaphysical dependence of modal physical structure on mathematics limits the class of acceptable solutions to the applicability problem that are available to the scientific realist. (shrink)

Bas van Fraassen’s empiricist reading of Perrin’s achievement invites the question: whose doubts about atoms did Perrin put to rest? This comment recontextualizes the argument and applies the notion of empirical grounding to some contemporary work in behavioral biology.

"Scientific theories are maps of the natural world." This metaphor is often used as part of a deflationary argument for a weak but relatively global version of scientific realism, a version that recognizes the place of conventions, goals, and contingencies in scientific representations, while maintaining that they are typically true in a clear and literal sense. By examining, in a naturalistic way, some relationships between maps and what they map, we question the scope and value of realist construals of maps-and (...) by extension of scientific representations. Deflationary philosophy of science requires more variegated stances. (shrink)

In this paper I argue-against van Fraassen's constructive empiricism-that the practice of saving phenomena is much broader than usually thought, and includes unobservable phenomena as well as observable ones. My argument turns on the distinction between data and phenomena: I discuss how unobservable phenomena manifest themselves in data models and how theoretical models able to save them are chosen. I present a paradigmatic case study taken from the history of particle physics to illustrate my argument. The first aim of this (...) paper is to draw attention to the experimental practice of saving unobservable phenomena, which philosophers have overlooked for too long. The second aim is to explore some far-reaching implications this practice may have for the debate on scientific realism and constructive empiricism. (shrink)

Newman’s objection is sometimes taken to be a fatal objection to structural realism (SR). However, ambiguity in the definition of “structure” allows for versions that do not succumb to Newman’s objection. In this paper, I consider some versions of SR that maintain an abstract notion of structure yet avoid Newman’s objection. In particular, I consider versions suggested by Melia and Saatsi. They reject a solution that restricts the domain of the second-order quantifiers, and argue in favor of buttressing the language (...) with intensional operators such as “it is physically necessary that...”. I argue that their favored solution effectively requires the former suggestion that they reject. This argument suggests that a notion of natural properties may be indispensable to SR. (shrink)

Some scientific realists suggest that scientific communities have improved in their ability to discover alternative theoretical possibilities and that the problem of unconceived alternatives therefore poses a less significant threat to contemporary scientific communities than it did to their historical predecessors. I first argue that the most profound and fundamental historical transformations of the scientific enterprise have actually increased rather than decreased our vulnerability to the problem. I then argue that whether we are troubled by even the prospect of increasing (...) theoretical conservatism in science should depend on the position we occupy in the ongoing debate concerning scientific realism itself. (shrink)

An enduring question in the philosophy of science is the question of whether a scientific theory deserves more credit for its successful predictions than it does for accommodating data that was already known when the theory was developed. In The Paradox of Predictivism, Eric Barnes argues that the successful prediction of evidence testifies to the general credibility of the predictor in a way that evidence does not when the evidence is used in the process of endorsing the theory. He illustrates (...) his argument with an important episode from nineteenth-century chemistry, Mendeleev's Periodic Law and its successful predictions of the existence of various elements. The consequences of this account of predictivism for the realist/anti-realist debate are considerable, and strengthen the status of the 'no miracle' argument for scientific realism. Barnes's important and original contribution to the debate will interest a wide range of readers in philosophy of science. (shrink)

According to the argument from underconsideration, since theory evaluation is comparative, and since scientists do not have good reasons to believe that they are epistemically privileged, it is unlikely that our best theories are true. In this paper, I examine two formulations of this argument, one based on van Fraassen’s “bad lot” premise and another based on what Lipton called the “no-privilege” premise. I consider several moves that scientific realists might make in response to these arguments. I then offer a (...) revised argument that is a middle ground between realism and anti-realism, or so I argue. (shrink)

Selective scientific realists disagree on which theoretical posits should be regarded as essential to the empirical success of a scientific theory. A satisfactory account of essentialness will show that the (approximate) truth of the selected posits adequately explains the success of the theory. Therefore, (a) the essential elements must be discernible prospectively; (b) there cannot be a priori criteria regarding which type of posit is essential; and (c) the overall success of a theory, or ‘cluster’ of propositions, not only individual (...) derivations, should be explicable. Given these desiderata, I propose a “unification criterion” for identifying essential elements. (shrink)

There are several existing arguments against scientific realism which rely on the notion that key alternatives are inconceivable. But there are other such arguments which have remained unarticulated. In this paper presentation, Rowbottom would chart the possibility space of such arguments, and outline some promising novel arguments for anti-realism.

The aim of this article is to show that, in his use of the word ‘representation’, Philip Kitcher is committed to a particular notion of representation, which is essential to his argument for Real Realism in his paper Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy. After a short presentation of Kitcher’s original argument for Real Realism, I show that Kitcher’s notion of representation is not indisputable. By producing an alternative version of Kitcher’s argument, one which does not rely on this term ‘representation’, (...) I show the force and functioning of the Galilean strategy itself. A comparison of the two formulations of the argument reveals what is additionally brought in by Kitcher’s notion of representation: specifically, a particular answer to the question of what truth consists in. This presumed correspondence theory of truth is needed to achieve Real Realism by the Galilean strategy. The positive upshot is, however, that one can support the Galilean strategy as such, without being a Real Realist: One can apply the strategy to any other conception of truth. (shrink)

Is science in the truth business, discovering ever more about an independent and largely unobservable world? Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, two of the most important figures in science studies in the 20th century, gave accounts of science that are in some tension with the truth view. Their central claims about science are considered here, along with two arguments that bear directly on the truth question. One argument makes an appeal to past scientific failures to argue against the truth view; (...) the other makes an appeal to present scientific successes to argue for it. Both arguments are problematic. (shrink)

It is argued that abductive arguments from theoretical success count at best against fictionalism, that scientific realists are best distinguished by their belief in the legitimacy of abduction, and that scientific realism is thus best understood as scientific anti-fictionalism. It is argued that some abductions to existential claims which are not theory-mediated have been vindicated by later observations, and that this counts in favour of the legitimacy of abduction. Attention then turns to the issue of abductive standards. It is argued (...) that the histories of the caloric theory of heat, the origins of classical thermodynamics, the kinetic theory of gases, and Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field suggest that if a model both satisfied an observationally adequate set of laws and was in a certain sense consonant with a body of background theory then this was counted in favour of its non-ad hocness, and eventually in favour of its admission as both a received model and one likely to be immune from radical overthrow or revision. It is argued that belief in a model's likely immunity from radical revision is the sort of success that counts for the purposes of any abductive inference, and hence that a model's consonance with background theory has counted for those who believe in abduction in favour of a realist attitude towards it. The appropriate notion of consonance is analyzed, and is termed the "independent warrant" which exists for the relevant model. The claim that independent warrant gave and properly gives grounds for a belief in the non-fictionality of the essential elements of the model to which it accrues is further defended. (shrink)

In the concluding chapter of Exceeding our Grasp Kyle Stanford outlines a positive response to the central issue raised brilliantly by his book, the problem of unconceived alternatives. This response, called "epistemic instrumentalism", relies on a distinction between instrumental and literal belief. We examine this distinction and with it the viability of Stanford's instrumentalism, which may well be another case of exceeding our grasp.

This dissertation examines the connection between Craig's theorem and scientific instrumentalism. The main question to be answered is whether the former can be used to support the latter. A negative answer to this question is defended in the dissertation. ;The first two chapters present a detailed expository account of the proof of Craig's theorem and also of the process by which theoretical terms are to be eliminated from scientific theories according to the method developed by Craig. Emphasis is placed on (...) those points which are relevant to later discussions. ;There have been several arguments against using the Craigian method of eliminating theoretical terms and against replacing a scientific theory by its Craigian revised theory . The third chapter is devoted to two of those arguments. The first is meant to show that the distinction between observational and theoretical terms is untenable and hence that the Craigian method cannot be used to eliminate theoretical terms. The second is intended to show that a Craigian revised theory does not always preserve the whole inductive power of its original theory and hence that it cannot replace the original theory. Both arguments are analyzed in detail and rejected. ;The fourth chapter argues that Craig's theorem cannot be used to support scientific instrumentalism: it is argued that a Craigian revised theory may lack the explanatory power of its original theory. In the course of arguing the above point, ten outstanding theories of explanation are considered. It is argued that no matter which account of explanation is adopted, a Craigian revised theory cannot always preserve the whole explanatory power of its original theory. ;In the fifth chapter, the "theoretician's dilemma" of Carl G. Hempel's is examined. It is argued that, in virtue of the explanatory shortcoming of the Craigian method, the theoretician's dilemma cannot be used to support scientific instrumentalism. (shrink)

For as long as realists and instrumentalists have disagreed, partisans of both sides have pointed in argument to the actions and sayings of scientists. Realists in particular have often drawn comfort from the literal understanding given even to very theoretical propositions by many of those who are paid to deploy them. The scientists' realism, according to the realist, is not an idle commitment: a literal understanding of past and present theories and concepts underwrites their employment in the construction of new (...) theories. The theme of this book is philosophy and technology, and here's the connection: new theories point out—and explain— new phenomena. So realism, claim the realists, is at the heart of science's achievement of what Bacon, that early philosopher of technology, identified as science's aim: new knowledge offering new powers. (shrink)

I begin the account of scientific realism with the intuition that we explain the behavior of an object by saying what it is and that if we can say what an object is we have an explanation of its behavior. The question the scientific realist needs to answer is whether the intuition is limited to cases in which an explanation is given in macroscopic terms or whether it can be justifiably extended to theoretical explanations. To justify extending the intuition to (...) theoretical explanations, I give an account of the relationship between the entities postulated by the theory and the entities whose behavior the theory explains, an account of the criteria by which a theory is evaluated, and I justify these criteria as the right criteria. ;The first alternative view I consider is Ronald Giere's naturalized philosophy of science in which he attempts to reject the traditional, epistemological task of justifying theories. Giere fails to show that the epistemological questions need not be answered; yet from within his view, he is powerless to answer them. ;The second alternative I consider is Bas van Fraassen's scientific antirealism. He claims that the most we are ever entitled to believe is what a theory says about observable phenomena, and that we must remain agnostic about the truth of theoretical statements. I show that this view fails, for the reasons we have for believing what a theory says about observable phenomena are the same reasons we have for believing that the theory is approximately true. The only way van Fraassen can reject a realistic conclusion requires a metaphysical distinction between what is observable and what is not. For this he has been unwilling to argue. ;I conclude that the objections to scientific realism can be met, that there are strong arguments for it, and that the alternatives are found wanting. Scientific realism is, by far, the most persuasive view. (shrink)

If scientific theories could be known to be true, theory acceptance would be based on the truth of theories: we would accept only true theories. But no theory can be known to be true, as will be argued in chapter 4. I argue that the main determinant of acceptance is the ability of a theory to cohere with other accepted theories. Yet intertheoretic coherence is not the only determinant of acceptance. Accepted theories should be well-constructed and have an explanatory capability (...) to be accepted. Intertheoretic coherence also constrains theory change, as will be argued in chapter 6. The widely accepted view that the principal aim of science is to provide adequate explanations is defended in this dissertation. However, adequate explanations do not have to be true, it will be argued. This, nonetheless, does not undermine the rationality of science. Science is rational as long as it gives us the best possible explanation with the help of the best available theories. ;The plan of the dissertation is as follows. In first two chapters, a review and critique of scientific realism is offered, because its basic theses are at variance with the coherentist view. It is shown that the realist view of theory acceptance and change is untenable. In chapter 3, Hacking's attempt to defend realism by founding its basic tenets on experimentation, will be criticized. Chapter 4 is concerned with the applicability of theories of truth to scientific theories. It is argued that no theory of truth can enable us to know whether a scientific theory is true. As an introduction to the view that the aim of science is to explain, I argue that predictions are special forms of explanation in chapter 5. In chapter 6, the main arguments for the coherentist view, which are supported by historical case studies, are presented. Also, it is argued that science is objective. Chapter 7 advocates the view that science aims primarily to produce explanations. The traditional view science can be rational only if its explanations are known to be true, not merely adequate, will be criticized. (shrink)

The defining claim of scientific realism is that our scientific theories work because they correspond to the world--that is, because they contain terms which genuinely refer and because they make claims about the world which are genuinely true of the world. Unfortunately, it is widely assumed that to be committed to this view about the relationship between empirical success, reference, and truth is by necessity to be committed as well to the view that science is converging. It is also widely (...) assumed that in saying that some theories refer and are true we are committed to also saying that certain other theories do not refer and are not true. In this dissertation, I defend a version of scientific realism that is unencumbered by these deeply entrenched assumptions. In particular, I argue that realism not only can but should be divorced from convergence. I also argue that the success of a theory, while sufficient to warrant an inference to the truth of the theory, never warrants an inference to the nonreference or falsity of other theories, even to those theories contradicted by the successful theory. (shrink)

I carefully analyze the two major arguments for scientific realism, what I call the Explanatory Argument for Realism and what I call the Epistemic Arbitrariness Argument . According to advocates of EAR, we should believe in realism because it is the only adequate explanation of the success of science or scientific methodology. On the other hand, according to advocates of EAA, the distinction between observable entities and unobservable entities is epistemically arbitrary, and thus, contrary to what nonrealists claim, inference to (...) the existence of unobservable entities is no more suspect than inference to the existence of observable entities. ;The importance of EAR and EAA for the issue of scientific realism can hardly be overemphasized. For instance, Richard Boyd, one of the most distinguished proponents of scientific realism, has claimed that EAR is "probably the argument that reconstructs the reason why most scientific realists are realists"; and, according to Arthur Fine, something like EAA is what really motivates scientific realists, in their heart of hearts, to be realists. ;I argue that both EAR and EAA fail. However, I also argue that nonrealists such as Bas van Fraassen have failed to provide good reasons to adopt their own position. Thus, I conclude, we are left in a sort of stalemate between realism and nonrealism. After drawing this conclusion, I argue for a new form of nonrealism--what I call categorical empiricism. According to categorical empiricism, we can only be rationally obligated to believe in theoretical entities that fall into categories that are grounded in our everyday experience. I argue that this form of nonrealism has the advantage of casting doubt on the existence of unobservable entities such as quarks and curved space-time without at the same time casting doubt on the existence of unobservable entities such as dinosaurs. (shrink)

According to the success argument for scientific realism, scientific realism must be true or else the success of science would be inexplicable. I contend that this argument fails: scientific realism is unable to account for the predictive successes of scientific theories. Scientific anti-realism also fails to explain these successes, as does social constructivism. I conclude that we are forced to take the second horn of the realist's dilemma and accept that the success of science is inexplicable.

In this paper I argue in favour of a moderate and selective version of scientific realism with respect to the existence of some physical theoretical objects and the truth of some statements about them. The analysis of common sense or ordinary experience reveals that existence and truth assertions concerning familiar objects are warranted if they satisfy what we call the criteria of presence and invariance. Ordinary objects exemplify a form or a structure determined by constant and changing features with respect (...) to the variation of the conditions of observation and a content given in sensory presence. It is claimed that some theoretical physical objects that possess a structure or a form determined by invariant and variable characteristics relatively to a specified group of transformations and a content provided by observations on which the measurement of those characteristics is grounded can also be justifiably asserted to exist. We further show that this defence of scientific realism in physics doesn't fall prey to the objections that have been raised against the usual vindication of scientific realism based on the no-miracle argument. Some standard objections to scientific realism, such as the underdetermination of theories by observations and the pessimistic meta-induction, are examined and shown to be unconvincing. (shrink)