Scientific Realism and the Pessimistic Meta-Modus Tollens

Broadly speaking, the contemporary scientific realist is concerned to justify belief in what we might call theoretical truth, which includes truth based on ampliative inference and truth about unobservables.1 Many, if not most, contemporary realists say scientific realism should be treated as ‘an overarching scientific hypothesis’ (Putnam 1978, p. 18). In its most basic form, the realist hypothesis states that theories enjoying general predictive success are true. This hypothesis becomes a hypothesis to be tested. To justify our belief in the realist hypothesis, realists commonly put forward an argument known as the ‘no-miracles argument’. With respect to the basic hypothesis this argument can be stated as follows: it would be a miracle were our theories as successful as they are, were they not true; the only possible explanation for the general predictive success of our scientific theories is that they are true.2

[1]  S. Psillos Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth , 1999 .

[2]  P. Snowdon,et al.  What is Realism , 2002 .

[3]  Fred I. Dretske,et al.  Laws of Nature , 1977, Philosophy of Science.

[4]  H. Poincaré Science and Hypothesis , 1906 .

[5]  Jarrett Leplin,et al.  A novel defense of scientific realism , 1997 .

[6]  Stephen Clarke Defensible Territory for Entity Realism , 2001, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[7]  I. Lakatos,et al.  Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes , 1970 .

[8]  H. Putnam X—What Is “Realism”? , 1976 .

[9]  J. Worrall Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?* , 1989 .

[10]  S. Brush Dynamics of Theory Change: The Role of Predictions , 1994, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

[11]  M. Klein Book Review:The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory Pierre Duhem, P. P. Wiener , 1954 .

[12]  R. Sargent Explaining the Success of Science , 1988, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

[13]  Bas C. van Fraassen,et al.  The Scientific Image , 1980 .

[14]  Martin Carrier,et al.  What is right with the miracle argument: Establishing a taxonomy of natural kinds , 1993 .

[15]  Howard Sankey,et al.  Scientific Realism: An Elaboration and a Defence , 2004 .

[16]  Imre Lakatos,et al.  Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge , 1972 .

[17]  John Worrall,et al.  AN UNREAL IMAGE* , 1984, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[18]  L. Motz,et al.  The story of physics , 1989 .

[19]  Roger Fellows,et al.  Images of Science , 1988 .

[20]  Stephen Finney Mason,et al.  A History of the Sciences , 1962 .

[21]  N. Cartwright How the laws of physics lie , 1984 .

[22]  J. Hudson History of Chemistry , 1923, Nature.

[23]  L. Laudan A Confutation of Convergent Realism , 1981, Philosophy of Science.

[24]  J. Partington,et al.  A Short History of Chemistry , 1957 .

[25]  S. Brush Dynamics of theory change in chemistry: Part 2. Benzene and molecular orbitals, 1945–1980 , 1999 .

[26]  Rosenfeld,et al.  Of Minds and Molecules , 2000 .

[27]  P. Kitcher The Advancement of Science , 1993 .

[28]  L. Laudan Progress and Its Problems , 1977 .

[29]  J. Marks Science and the making of the modern world , 1983 .

[30]  The Historical Background of Chemistry , 1957 .

[31]  C. Wright Representing and Intervening , 1985 .

[32]  Brian Ellis,et al.  Rational Belief Systems. , 1980 .

[33]  H. D. Regt,et al.  Representing the world by scientific theories: The case for scientific realism , 1994 .

[34]  K. Hutchison W. J. M. Rankine and the Rise of Thermodynamics , 1981, The British Journal for the History of Science.

[35]  Alan H. Guth,et al.  The Inflationary Universe , 1985 .

[36]  H. Putnam,et al.  Meaning and the Moral Sciences. , 1979 .

[37]  Maureen. Christie Philosophers versus chemists concerning ‘laws of nature’ , 1994 .

[38]  Martin Carrier,et al.  What is wrong with the miracle argument , 1991 .

[39]  B. Ellis,et al.  Truth and Objectivity , 1991 .

[40]  M. Edwards Concise Science Dictionary , 1985 .