scholarly journals Editor's Introduction

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Curtis Forbes
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
The Future ◽  
Technical Details ◽  
Realism Debate

The debate over scientific realism, simply put, is a debate over what we can and should believe about reality once we've critically assessed all the available arguments and empirical evidence. Thinking earnestly about the merits of scientific realism as a philosophical thesis requires navigating contentious historiographical issues, being familiar with the technical details of various scientific theories, and addressing disparate philosophical problems spanning aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology, and beyond. This issue of Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science aims to make participating in the scientific realism debate easier for both newcomers and veterans, collecting over twenty invited and peer-reviewed papers under the title "The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism."

1. The methods and fruits of science

2021 ◽  
pp. 7-22
Author(s):  
David Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Dark Matter ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Real Science ◽  
The World ◽  
Key Topics ◽  
Theory Test

This chapter briefly discusses central key topics in the philosophy of science that the remainder of the book draws upon. It begins by considering the scientific method. ‘Induction’—the idea that we construct scientific theories just by generalizing from observations—is a very poor match to real science. ‘Falsification’—Popper’s idea that we create a theory, test against observation, and discard it if it fails the test—is much more realistic, but still too simple: data only falsifies data given auxiliary assumptions that can themselves be doubted. The issues are illustrated through an example from modern astrophysics: dark matter. The chapter then explores how we can resolve issues of underdetermination, where two theories give the same predictions. Finally, it introduces ‘scientific realism’, the view that our best theories tell us things about the world that go beyond what is directly observable.

scholarly journals Deconstructing the Phantom: Duhem and the Scientific Realism Debate

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mateusz Kotowski ◽  
Krzysztof Szlachcic
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Scientific Realist ◽  
Realism Debate

AbstractFor many decades, Duhem has been considered a paradigmatic instrumentalist, and while some commentators have argued against classifying him in this way, it still seems prevalent as an interpretation of his philosophy of science. Yet such a construal bears scant resemblance to the views presented in his own works—so little, indeed, that it might be said to constitute no more than a mere phantom with respect to his actual thought. In this article, we aim to deconstruct this phantom, tracing the sources of the misconceptions surrounding his ideas and pinpointing the sources and/or causes of its proliferation. We subsequently point out and discuss those elements of his philosophy that, taken together, support the view of him as a scientific realist of a sophisticated kind. Finally, we defend our own interpretation of his thought against suggestions to the effect that it is oriented towards neither instrumentalism nor scientific realism.

Confirmation

Philosophy ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Dallmann ◽  
Franz Huber
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Observational Data ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Strong Argument ◽  
Problem Of Induction ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Future ◽  
Other Information ◽  
Degree Of Confirmation

The term confirmation is used in epistemology and the philosophy of science whenever observational data and other information that is taken for granted speak in favor of or support scientific theories and everyday hypotheses. Historically, confirmation has been closely related to the problem of induction, the question of what to believe regarding the future given information that is restricted to the past and present. One relation between confirmation and induction is that the conclusion H of an inductively strong argument with premise E is confirmed by E. If inductive strength comes in degrees and the inductive strength of the argument with premise E and conclusion H is equal to r, then the degree of confirmation of H by E is likewise said to be equal to r.

Réalisme et fictionalisme chez Claude Bernard

Dialogue ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 719-742
Author(s):  
Luiz Henrique de A. Dutra
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Ian Hacking ◽  
Theoretical Terms ◽  
Claude Bernard

ABSTRACTIan Hacking puts forward a distinction between two kinds of scientific realism. According to scientific realism about theories, scientific theories are accepted as approximately true; according to scientific realism about unobservable entities, the theoretical terms occurring in scientific theories refer to existing, real entities. This article seeks to show that Claude Bernard's philosophy of science is a realist one about scientific theories, but anti-realist about unobservable entities. The term “fictionalism” is used here to stand for this sort of anti-realism about unobservable entities.

scholarly journals A Fond Farewell to "Approximate Truth"?

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 78 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Kyle Stanford
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Scientific Inquiry ◽  
High Probability ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Scientific Realist ◽  
Approximate Truth ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Realism Debate

Most commonly, the scientific realism debate is seen as dividing those who do and do not think that the striking empirical and practical successes of at least our best scientific theories indicate with high probability that those theories are ‘approximately true’. But I want to suggest that this characterization of the debate has far outlived its usefulness. Not only does it obscure the central differences between two profoundly different types of contemporary scientific realist, but even more importantly it serves to disguise the most substantial points of actual disagreement between these two kinds of realists and those who instead think the historical record of scientific inquiry itself reveals that such realism is untenable in either form.

scholarly journals La metafísica del realismo científico, un acercamiento pragmatista. The Metaphysics of Scientific Realism, a Pragmatist Approach

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paniel Reyes-Cárdenas
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Structuralist Approach ◽  
Pragmatic Maxim

En este escrito presento una interpretación del realismo científico desde la tradición pragmatista iniciada por Charles S. Peirce. El artículo discute escrúpulos en contra de la metafísica, y propone un pragmatismo realista, que utiliza la máxima pragmática en sus aspectos operacionalistas e inferenciales: el carácter inferencialista de la máxima enfatiza los procesos de inferencia en los que una proposición se encuentra envuelta; mientras que el carácter operacionalista enfatiza el conjunto de consecuencias traducibles como hábitos de la acción que se siguen de la aceptación de dicha proposición. Mi propuesta es que la máxima de hecho supone ambos aspectos, pero destaca el carácter operacionalista dado el carácter e inclinación experimental de la práctica científica. Dicho pragmatismo de raigambre Peirceana resulta prometedor en filosofía de la ciencia, en tanto que puede contribuir a la investigación autocontrolada, que no es agnóstica con respecto a la metafísica. Hacia el final del artículo ofrezco un ejemplo del acercamiento estructuralista a las matemáticas como un ejemplo de la aplicación de la máxima a problemas conceptuales sobre la realidad de entidades en nuestras mejores teorías científicas.In this essay I advance an interpretation of Scientific Realism from the viewpoint of the pragmatist tradition initiated by Charles S. Peirce. This article argues against scruples against metaphysics and proposes a pragmatistic realism that uses the pragmatic maxim in its inferentialist and operationalist aspects: the inferentialist character of the maxim emphasizes the inferential processes in which the proposition is embedded; meanwhile, the operationalist character of the maxim stresses the set of consequences that can be translated has habits of action followed by the acceptation of a proposition. My proposal is that the maxim actually presupposes both aspects. However, I highlight the value of the operationalist aspect due to the nature and experimental leaning of scientific practice. In addition, the article also claims that such promising pragmatistic realism in the Philosophy of science contributes more to self-controlled inquiry and is not metaphysically agnostic. Towards the end I offer the example of the structuralist approach in mathematics as a token of the application of the maxim to conceptual issues about the reality of items of our best scientific theories.

scholarly journals Incompatibility and the pessimistic induction: a challenge for selective realism

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian J. Boge
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Pessimistic Induction ◽  
Inductive Argument ◽  
Scientific Success ◽  
No Miracles Argument ◽  
Standard Response ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
General Explanation ◽  
Realism Debate

AbstractTwo powerful arguments have famously dominated the realism debate in philosophy of science: The No Miracles Argument (NMA) and the Pessimistic Meta-Induction (PMI). A standard response to the PMI is selective scientific realism (SSR), wherein only the working posits of a theory are considered worthy of doxastic commitment. Building on the recent debate over the NMA and the connections between the NMA and the PMI, I here consider a stronger inductive argument that poses a direct challenge for SSR: Because it is sometimes exactly the working posits which contradict each other, i.e., that which is directly responsible for empirical success, SSR cannot deliver a general explanation of scientific success.

Laws of Nature

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Law Of Nature ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Universe

The concept of a law of nature, while familiar, is deeply puzzling. Theorists such as Descartes think a divine being governs the universe according to the laws which follow from that being’s own nature. Newton detaches the concept from theology and is agnostic about the ontology underlying the laws of nature. Some later philosophers treat laws as summaries of events or tools for understanding and explanation, or identify the laws with principles and equations fundamental to scientific theories. In the first part of this volume, essays from leading historians of philosophy identify central questions: are laws independent of the things they govern, or do they emanate from the powers of bodies? Are the laws responsible for the patterns we see in nature, or should they be collapsed into those patterns? In the second part, contributors at the forefront of current debate evaluate the role of laws in contemporary Best System, perspectival, Kantian, and powers- or mechanisms-based approaches. These essays take up pressing questions about whether the laws of nature can be consistent with contingency, whether laws are based on the invariants of scientific theories, and how to deal with exceptions to laws. These twelve essays, published here for the first time, will be required reading for anyone interested in metaphysics, philosophy of science, and the histories of these disciplines.

scholarly journals Scientific Ontology: Fact or Stance?

Dialogue ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stathis Psillos
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Epistemic Stance ◽  
Realism Debate ◽  
Scientific Ontology

ABSTRACTIn this paper, the key tenets of Anjan Chakravartty's book Scientific Ontology are critically discussed. After a brief presentation of the project of stance-based ontology (Section 2), I move on to criticize Chakravartty's account of metaphysical inference (Sections 2 and 3). Then, in Section 4, I take issue with Chakravartty's view that fundamental debates in metaphysics inevitably lead to irresolvable disagreement, while in Section 5, the concept of epistemic stance is scrutinized, noting that there are problems in Chakravartty's account of the rationality of stance-choice. Finally, Section 6 is about the implications of stance-based ontology for the scientific realism debate.

What is a scientific instrument, now?

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liba Taub
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Smithsonian Institution ◽  
Scientific Instrument ◽  
Scientific Instruments ◽  
Classic Article ◽  
The Future ◽  
History Of

Abstract In 1990, Deborah Jean Warner, a curator at the Smithsonian Institution, published her now-classic article ‘What is a scientific instrument, when did it become one, and why?’. These questions were prompted by practical curatorial considerations: what was she supposed to collect for her museum? Today, we are still considering questions of what we collect for the future, why, and how. These questions have elicited some new and perhaps surprising answers since the publication of Warner’s article, sometimes – but not only – as a reflection of changing technologies and laboratory practices, and also as a result of changes in those disciplines that study science, including history of science and philosophy of science. In focusing attention on meanings associated with scientific instrument collections, and thinking about what objects are identified as scientific instruments, I consider how definitions of instruments influence what is collected and preserved.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document