Evidence, Explanation, and the Empirical Status of Scientific Realism

Erkenntnis 63 (2):253-291 (2005)

Igor Douven
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
There is good reason to believe that, if it can be decided at all, the realism debate must be decided on a posteriori grounds. But at least prima facie the prospects for an a posteriori resolution of the debate seem bleak, given that realists and antirealists disagree over two of the most fundamental questions pertaining to any kind of empirical research, to wit, what the range of accessible evidence is and what the methodological status of explanatory considerations is. The present paper aims to show that, while the difficulties that face an empirical approach to the realism debate are not to be discounted, they are not insurmountable either. Specifically, it presents a broadly Bayesian strategy for resolving the debate that is capable of solving those difficulties. The strategy crucially involves answers to the aforementioned questions that diverge from both the standard realist and the standard antirealist answers, but that should appear more natural and plausible than those to realists and antirealists alike.
Keywords Philosophy   Philosophy   Epistemology   Ethics   Logic   Ontology
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10670-005-3228-5
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 40,183
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Inference to the Best Explanation.Peter Lipton - 1993 - Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
Theory and Evidence.Clark Glymour - 1980 - Princeton University Press.

View all 27 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Can the Skepticism Debate Be Resolved?Igor Douven - 2009 - Synthese 168 (1):23 - 52.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Two Cornell Realisms: Moral and Scientific.Elliott Sober - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (4):905-924.
Levin and Ghins on the “No Miracle” Argument and Naturalism.Mario Alai - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):85-110.
Mathematical Explanations Of Empirical Facts, And Mathematical Realism.Aidan Lyon - 2012 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (3):559-578.
Scientific Realism and Explanation.Robert Almeder - 1989 - American Philosophical Quarterly 26 (3):173 - 185.
Scientific Realism.Bruce Reichenbach - 2010 - In Melville Stewart (ed.), Science and Religion in Dialogue. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 1011--1033.
Defending Moral Realism From Empirical Evidence of Disagreement.C. D. Meyers - 2013 - Social Theory and Practice 39 (3):373-396.
Abduction and Scientific Realism.Ilkka Niiniluoto - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 12:137-142.
Does Scientific Realism Matter?Carl Alan Matheson - 1986 - Dissertation, Syracuse University
Why the Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism Ultimately Fails.Moti Mizrahi - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1):132-138.


Added to PP index

Total views
177 ( #38,354 of 2,237,445 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #84,665 of 2,237,445 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature