From the Evidence of History to the History of Evidence

This chapter looks into the transition from the Cartesian natural philosophy to the Newtonian one, and then to the Einsteinian science, making the following key point: though the shift from Descartes’s theory to Newton’s amounted to a wholesale rejection of Descartes’s theory, in the second shift, a great deal was retained; Newton’s theory of universal gravitation gave rise to a research program that informed and constrained Einstein’s theory. Newton’s theory was a lot more supported by the evidence than Descartes’s and this made it imperative for the successor theory to accommodate within it as much as possible of Newton’s theory: evidence for Newton’s theory became evidence for Einstein’s. This double case study motivates a rebranding of the “divide et impera” strategy against the pessimistic induction introduced in the book Scientific Realism, which shifts attention from the (crude) evidence of the history of science to the (refined) history of evidence for scientific theories.

Incompatibility and the pessimistic induction: a challenge for selective realism

Two 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.

Closed Theories, Falsificationism and Non-Cumulative Progress

It is argued that scientific progress occurs not with the cumulative growth of knowledge or when theories get closer to the truth but with discovering new domains and new theories that fit these domains. This horizontal view on the direction of scientific progress (in contrast to vertical, when we aim to get from here to the abstract and ephemeral truth) allows avoiding traditional objections posed by the incommensurability thesis and pessimistic induction, namely, that radical theory changes leave no room for progress. According to this perspective, the discovery of quantum mechanics as a new field of inquiry is a progress in itself, since this discovery had opened up a new distinctive domain of physics and a new theory that fits this domain. While some perspectives on scientific progress maintain that there is a need for correspondence between competing theories, we shift the emphasis from correspondence towards the discovery of new domains and new theories that apply to those domains. This approach allows overcoming the problem of theoretical discontinuity after scientific revolutions. Correspondence between theories is an important but not necessary condition for progress, while the falsifiability of theories as a means of demonstrating the boundaries of old theories and domains and beginnings of the new domains and theories (instead of being merely a means of refutation) is a necessary condition.

The Absolute and Relative Pessimistic Inductions

[full article, abstract in English; abstract in Lithuanian] The absolute pessimistic induction states that earlier theories, although successful, were abandoned, so current theories, although successful, will also be abandoned. By contrast, the relative pessimistic induction states that earlier theories, although superior to their predecessors, were discarded, so current theories, although superior to earlier theories, will also be discarded. Some pessimists would have us believe that the relative pessimistic induction avoids empirical progressivism. I argue, however, that it has the same problem as the absolute pessimistic induction, viz., either its premise is implausible or its conclusion does not probably follow from its premise.

The Absolute and Relative Pessimistic Inductions

[full article, abstract in English; abstract in Lithuanian] The absolute pessimistic induction states that earlier theories, although successful, were abandoned, so current theories, although successful, will also be abandoned. By contrast, the relative pessimistic induction states that earlier theories, although superior to their predecessors, were discarded, so current theories, although superior to earlier theories, will also be discarded. Some pessimists would have us believe that the relative pessimistic induction avoids empirical progressivism. I argue, however, that it has the same problem as the absolute pessimistic induction, viz., either its premise is implausible or its conclusion does not probably follow from its premise.

Explanation, Understanding, Ontology, and Social Dynamics

Retrospective reflections are provided on the papers “Aleatory Explanations,” “Analytic versus Synthetic Understanding,” “Scientific and Speculative Ontology,” and “Endogenous Uncertainty and the Dynamics of Constraints” by Paul Humphreys. Arguments are given for restricting probabilistic causation to situations in which single case propensities are present and for keeping the pragmatics of explanation as a secondary, rather than a primary, feature of explanations. A finite representation schema for ceteris paribus conditions is provided and some suggestions for how to deal with the pessimistic induction are floated. Some reasons why traditional empiricism should not place constraints on the ontologies we use are given. Motivations for a previously unpublished paper that identifies situations in which individual utility maximization strategies perform worse at the society level than do some common individual strategies are provided and the appropriate role for encouraging certain types of constraints on self-interest is discussed.

The Pessimistic Induction and the Golden Rule

[full article, abstract in English; only abstract in Lithuanian] Nickles advocates scientific antirealism by appealing to the illusion hypothesis, the pessimistic induction over scientific theories, Darwin’s evolutionary theory, and the problem of underdetermination. I object that both the illusion hypothesis and evolutionary theory clash with the pessimistic induction and with the problem of underdetermination. I also argue that Nickles’s positive philosophical theories are subject to Park’s pessimistic induction over antirealists. Finally, I apply the Golden Rule to antirealists, viz., if antirealists do not want scientists to run the pessimistic induction over antirealists, antirealists ought not to run the pessimistic induction over scientific theories.

Scientific Realism and Primitive Ontology Or: The Pessimistic Induction and the Nature of the Wave Function

In this paper, I wish to connect the recent debate in the philosophy of quantum mechanics concerning the nature of the wave function to the historical debate in the philosophy of science regarding the tenability of scientific realism. Advocating realism about quantum mechanics is particularly challenging when focusing on the wave function. According to the wave function ontology approach, the wave function is a concrete physical entity. In contrast, according to an alternative viewpoint, namely the primitive ontology approach, the wave function does not represent physical objects. In this paper, I argue that the primitive ontology approach can naturally be interpreted as an instance of the so-called explanationist realism, which has been proposed as a response to the pessimistic-meta induction argument against scientific realism. If my arguments are sound, then one could conclude that: (1) contrary to what is commonly thought, if explanationism realism is a good response to the pessimistic-meta induction argument, it can be straightforwardly extended also to the quantum domain; (2) the primitive ontology approach is in better shape than the wave function ontology approach in resisting the pessimistic-meta induction argument against scientific realism.