Grounding the Selectionist Explanation for the Success of Science in the External Physical World

Foundations of Science: DOI: 10.1007/s10699-023-09907-y (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I identify two versions of the scientific anti-realist’s selectionist explanation for the success of science: Bas van Fraassen’s original and K. Brad Wray’s newer interpretation. In Wray’s version, psycho-social factors internal to the scientific community – viz. scientists’ interests, goals, and preferences – explain the theory-selection practices that explain theory-success. I argue that, if Wray’s version were correct, then science should resemble art. In art, the artwork-selection practices that explain artwork-success appear faddish. They are prone to radical change over time. Theory-selection practices that explain theory-success in science are however not faddish. They are mostly stable; that is, long-lived and consistent over time. This is because scientists (explicitly or implicitly) subscribe to what I will call the testability norm: scientific theories must make falsifiable claims about the external physical world. The testability norm and not psycho-sociology explains the theory-selection practices that explain theory-success in science. Contra Wray, scientific anti-realists can then maintain that the external physical world (as expressed in the testability norm) explains theory-success.

Similar books and articles

Resisting Scientific Realism by K. Brad Wray. [REVIEW]Samuel Ruhmkorff - 2019 - British Journal for Philosophy of Science Review of Books 1.
Darwinian-Selectionist Explanation, Radical Theory Change, and the Observable-Unobservable Dichotomy.Elay Shech - 2021 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 34 (4):221-241.
Induction, Rationality, and the Realism/Anti-realism Debate: A Reply to Shech.K. Brad Wray - 2022 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 34 (4):243-247.
Selection and Predictive Success.K. Brad Wray - 2010 - Erkenntnis 72 (3):365-377.
Still resisting: replies to my critics.K. Brad Wray - 2020 - Metascience 29 (1):33-40.
A new twist to the No Miracles Argument for the success of science.K. Brad Wray - 2018 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 69:86-89.
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.
Resisting Scientific Realism.K. Brad Wray - 2018 - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Methodological Naturalism and Scientific Success.Yunus Adi Prasetya - 2021 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 14 (1):231-256.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-02-22

Downloads
242 (#79,623)

6 months
111 (#32,232)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ragnar Van Der Merwe
University of Johannesburg

Citations of this work

Running Mice and Successful Theories: The Limitations of a Classical Analogy.Matthias Egg & August Hämmerli - forthcoming - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie:1-18.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Logic of Scientific Discovery.Karl Popper - 1959 - Studia Logica 9:262-265.
What is structural realism?James Ladyman - 1998 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 29 (3):409-424.
Knowledge and Social Imagery.David Bloor - 1979 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30 (2):195-199.
True enough.Catherine Z. Elgin - 2004 - Philosophical Issues 14 (1):113–131.

View all 44 references / Add more references