The Anti-Induction for Scientific Realism

In contemporary philosophy of science, the no-miracles argument and the pessimistic induction are regarded as the strongest arguments for and against scientific realism, respectively. In this paper, I construct a new argument for scientific realism which I call the anti-induction for scientific realism. It holds that, since past theories were false, present theories are true. I provide an example from the history of science to show that anti-inductions sometimes work in science. The anti-induction for scientific realism has several advantages over the no-miracles argument as a positive argument for scientific realism

Miracles, Trust, and Ennui in Barnes’ Predictivism

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

MIRACULOUS CONSILIENCE? CONSTRAINTS ON FORMULATIONS OF THE NO MIRACLES ARGUMENT

The intuition that the success of science is a mark of sciences power to track the nature of our world, to permit us confidence that the descriptions of our best sciences are true (or approximately true), is not new. Puntam (1975) popularized an argument based on this intuition; this argument is known as the No Miracles Argument. Providing a convincing formulation of this argument has proven difficult, and recently Magnus and Callender (2004) have suggested that any probabilistic formulation (given form by Bayes theorem) is fallacious. Earlier formulations suffer from problems just as deep; best explanation formulations are question-begging, for example. In this article, I propose two constraints for those attempting to formulate the argument: first, we ought to narrow the scope of the argument, focusing on only a special set of successes, and, second, the epistemic principle that connects the intuition to the realist conclusion ought to be one that is defeasible (rather than probabilistic or categorical). These constraints serve to avoid problems already set out in the literature, and make the No Miracles Argument a sort of local inference – one that is licensed by the case at hand, rather than a general rule. That is, you may only sometimes infer to the truth or approximate truth from success

Concerning miracles: An existential analysis of some critical insights from Hume and Lewis

People have questioned the veracity of miracles, especially when viewed as what is extraordinarily contrary or tremendously opposed to the normal course of natural events. Some scholars, headed by David Hume, opine that miracles are not really miracles, especially when understood as a flagrant transgression of nature. Others, spearheaded by Carl S. Lewis, posit that miracles are not only possible, but also real and factual, especially when they are considered from the perspectives of people’s experiences. However, flowing from these, this article reasons that the basis of acceptance of miracles is no scientific proof but a living faith that trusts the person, role and function of God in human life. This makes it obvious that, while there are no scientific proofs, there are firm indications that miracles are real in the life of the believing community

In Defense of Realism and Selectivism from Lyons’s Objections

Lyons (2016, 2017, 2018) formulates Laudan’s (1981) historical objection to scientific realism as a modus tollens. I present a better formulation of Laudan’s objection, and then argue that Lyons’s formulation is supererogatory. Lyons rejects scientific realism (Putnam, 1975) on the grounds that some successful past theories were (completely) false. I reply that scientific realism is not the categorical hypothesis that all successful scientific theories are (approximately) true, but rather the statistical hypothesis that most successful scientific theories are (approximately) true. Lyons rejects selectivism (Kitcher, 1993; Psillos, 1999) on the grounds that some working assumptions were (completely) false in the history of science. I reply that selectivists would say not that all working assumptions are (approximately) true, but rather that most working assumptions are (approximately) true

Rejecting Mathematical Realism while Accepting Interactive Realism

Indispensablists contend that accepting scientific realism while rejecting mathematical realism involves a double standard. I refute this contention by developing an enhanced version of scientific realism, which I call interactive realism. It holds that interactively successful theories are typically approximately true, and that the interactive unobservable entities posited by them are likely to exist. It is immune to the pessimistic induction while mathematical realism is susceptible to it

Kuhnian theory-choice and virtue convergence: facing the base rate fallacy

Perhaps the strongest argument for scientific realism, the no-miracles-argument, has been said to commit the so-called base rate fallacy. The apparent elusiveness of the base rate of true theories has even been said to undermine the rationality of the entire realism debate. In this paper, I confront this challenge by arguing, on the basis of the Kuhnian picture of theory choice, that a theory is likely to be true if it possesses multiple theoretical virtues and is embraced by numerous scientists, even when the base rate converges to zero

Should Scientific Realists Embrace Theoretical Conservatism?

A prominent type of scientific realism holds that some important parts of our best current scientific theories are at least approximately true. According to such realists, radically distinct alternatives to these theories or theory-parts are unlikely to be approximately true. Thus one might be tempted to argue, as the prominent anti-realist Kyle Stanford recently did, that realists of this kind have little or no reason to encourage scientists to attempt to identify and develop theoretical alternatives that are radically distinct from currently accepted theories in the relevant respects. In other words, it may seem that realists should recommend that scientists be relatively conservative in their theoretical endeavors. This paper aims to show that this argument is mistaken. While realists should indeed be less optimistic of finding radically distinct alternatives to replace current theories, realists also have greater reasons to value the outcomes of such searches. Interestingly, this holds both for successful and failed attempts to identify and develop such alternatives

Localism vs. Individualism for the Scientific Realism Debate

Localism is the view that the unit of evaluation in the scientific realism debate is a single scientific discipline, sub-discipline, or claim, whereas individualism is the view that the unit of evaluation is a single scientific theory. Localism is compatible, while individualism is not, with a local pessimistic induction and a local selective induction. Asay (2016) presents several arguments to support localism and undercut globalism, according to which the unit of evaluation is the set of all scientific disciplines. I argue that some of his arguments clash with localism as well as with globalism and support individualism, and that individualism goes hand in hand, while localism does not, with the basic rule of how to evaluate an argument

Kuhnian theory-choice and virtue convergence: facing the base rate fallacy

Perhaps the strongest argument for scientific realism, the no-miracles-argument, has been said to commit the so-called base rate fallacy. The apparent elusiveness of the base rate of true theories has even been said to undermine the rationality of the entire realism debate. In this paper, I confront this challenge by arguing, on the basis of the Kuhnian picture of theory choice, that a theory is likely to be true if it possesses multiple theoretical virtues and is embraced by numerous scientists, even when the base rate converges to zero