Worrall argued that structural realism provides a ‘synthesis’ of the main pro-realist argument – the ‘No Miracles Argument’, and the main anti-realist argument – the ‘Pessimistic Induction’. More recently, however, it has been claimed that each of these arguments is an instance of the same probabilistic fallacy – sometimes called the ‘base-rate fallacy’. If correct, this clearly seems to undermine structural realism and Magnus and Callender have indeed claimed that both arguments are fallacious and ‘without [them] we lose the rationale for … structural realism ’. I here argue that what have been shown to be fallacious are simply misguided formalisations of ‘the’ arguments and that when they are properly construed they continue to provide powerful motivation for favouring structural realism.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
The No Miracles Argument and the Base Rate Fallacy.Leah Henderson - forthcoming - Synthese:1-8.
Similar books and articles
The Epistemological Status of Scientific Theories: An Investigation of the Structural Realist Account.Ioannis Votsis - 2004 - Dissertation, London School of Economics
On the Preferability of Epistemic Structural Realism.Matteo Morganti - 2004 - Synthese 142 (1):81--107.
Why the No-Miracles Argument Fails.Carl Matheson - 1998 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (3):263 – 279.
Recent Debates Over Structural Realism.Daniel McArthur - 2006 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 37 (2):209 - 224.
Added to index2009-02-28
Total downloads650 ( #1,642 of 2,146,969 )
Recent downloads (6 months)98 ( #1,324 of 2,146,969 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.