Does Structural Realism Provide the Best Explanation of the Predictive Success of Science?

I examine Carrier’s and Ladyman’s structural realist (‘SR’) explanation of the predictive success of phlogiston chemistry. On their account, it succeeds because phlogiston chemists grasped that there is some common unobservable structure of relations underlying combustion, calcification, and respiration. I argue that this SR account depends on assuming the truth of current chemical theory of oxidation and reduction, which provides a better explanation of the success of phlogiston theory than SR provides. I defend an alternative version of inference-to-the-best-explanation scientific realism which I call ‘Best Current Theory Realism’ (BCTR) and argue that it can answer the pessimistic meta-induction

Equality and the Digital Divide

Although distribution of computers and Internet access is important in equalizing information access, this article considers the concept of digital literacy. People not only need access to information, but an understanding of what to do with the knowledge acquired. Explore with Professor Doppelt the idea that the digital divide is a new aspect to the literacy divide, and the crucial role that education in public schools plays in equalizing opportunity

Empirical Success or Explanatory Success: What does Current Scientific Realism Need to Explain?

Against the well-known objection that in the history of science there are many theories that are successful but false, Psillos offers a three-pronged defense of scientific realism as the best explanation for the success of science. Focusing on these, I criticize Psillos’ defense, arguing that each prong is weakened when we recognize that according to realist rebuttals of the underdetermination argument and versions of empiricism, realists are committed to accounting for the explanatory success of theories, not their mere empirical adequacy or instrumental reliability. I conclude by indicating how ‘explanationist’ realism might be recast to accommodate my arguments