External links Within philosophy of science , this view is often an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained? Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make valid claims about unobservables viz. Main features Scientific realism involves the two basic positions. First, it is a set of claims about the features of an ideal scientific theory; an ideal theory is the sort of theory science aims to produce.
|Published (Last):||16 April 2009|
|PDF File Size:||4.89 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.84 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
External links Within philosophy of science , this view is often an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained? Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make valid claims about unobservables viz. Main features Scientific realism involves the two basic positions. First, it is a set of claims about the features of an ideal scientific theory; an ideal theory is the sort of theory science aims to produce. Second, it is the commitment that science will eventually produce theories very much like an ideal theory and that science has done pretty well thus far in some domains.
It is important to note that one might be a scientific realist regarding some sciences while not being a realist regarding others. This is the semantic commitment of scientific realism. The entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and mind-independently. This is the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism. There are reasons to believe some significant portion of what the theory says. This is the epistemological commitment.
Combining the first and the second claim entails that an ideal scientific theory says definite things about genuinely existing entities. The third claim says that we have reasons to believe that many scientific claims about these entities are true, but not all.
Scientific realism usually holds that science makes progress, i. For this reason, many people [ who? Characteristic claims The following claims are typical of those held by scientific realists. The best theories do not employ central terms that are non referring expressions. To say that a theory is approximately true is sufficient explanation of the degree of its predictive success. The approximate truth of a theory is the only explanation of its predictive success.
Even if a theory employs expressions that do not have a reference, a scientific theory may be approximately true. Scientific theories are in a historical process of progress towards a true account of the physical world. Scientific theories make genuine, existential claims.
Theoretical claims of scientific theories should be read literally and are definitively either true or false. The degree of the predictive success of a theory is evidence of the referential success of its central terms. The goal of science is an account of the physical world that is literally true. Science has been successful because this is the goal that it has been making progress towards.
History Scientific realism is related to much older philosophical positions including rationalism and metaphysical realism. However, it is a thesis about science developed in the twentieth century.
Portraying scientific realism in terms of its ancient, medieval, and early modern cousins is at best misleading. Scientific realism is developed largely as a reaction to logical positivism. Logical positivism was the first philosophy of science in the twentieth century and the forerunner of scientific realism, holding that a sharp distinction can be drawn between theoretical terms and observational terms , the latter capable of semantic analysis in observational and logical terms. Logical positivism encountered difficulties with: The verificationist theory of meaning—see Hempel Troubles with the analytic-synthetic distinction—see Quine The theory-ladenness of observation—see Hanson Kuhn and Quine Difficulties moving from the observationality of terms to observationality of sentences—see Putnam The vagueness of the observational-theoretical distinction—see G.
Maxwell These difficulties for logical positivism suggest, but do not entail, scientific realism, and led to the development of realism as a philosophy of science.
Realism became the dominant philosophy of science after positivism. Responses to van Fraassen have sharpened realist positions and lead to some revisions of scientific realism. Arguments for and against scientific realism No miracles argument Wikiquote has quotations related to: No miracles argument One of the main arguments for scientific realism centers on the notion that scientific knowledge is progressive in nature, and that it is able to predict phenomena successfully.
For example, a scientific realist would argue that science must derive some ontological support for atoms from the outstanding phenomenological success of all the theories using them. Arguments for scientific realism often appeal to abductive reasoning or "inference to the best explanation" Lipton, For instance, one argument commonly used—the "miracle argument" or "no miracles argument"—starts out by observing that scientific theories are highly successful in predicting and explaining a variety of phenomena, often with great accuracy.
Thus, it is argued that the best explanation—the only explanation that renders the success of science to not be what Hilary Putnam calls "a miracle"—is the view that our scientific theories or at least the best ones provide true descriptions of the world, or approximately so.
It is not even surprising to the scientific Darwinist mind. For any scientific theory is born into a life of fierce competition, a jungle red in tooth and claw. Only the successful theories survive—the ones which in fact latched on to actual regularities in nature. Additionally, the history of science contains many empirically successful theories whose unobservable terms are not believed to genuinely refer. For example, the effluvium theory of static electricity a theory of the 16th Century physicist William Gilbert is an empirically successful theory whose central unobservable terms have been replaced by later theories.
Realists reply that replacement of particular realist theories with better ones is to be expected due to the progressive nature of scientific knowledge, and when such replacements occur only superfluous unobservables are dropped. On the other hand, when theory replacement occurs, a well-supported concept, such as the concept of atoms , is not dropped but is incorporated into the new theory in some form.
These replies can lead scientific realists to structural realism. Constructivist epistemology Social constructivists might argue that scientific realism is unable to account for the rapid change that occurs in scientific knowledge during periods of scientific revolution. Constructivists may also argue that the success of theories is only a part of the construction. However, these arguments ignore the fact that many scientists are not realists. During the development of quantum mechanics in the s, the dominant philosophy of science was logical positivism.
The alternative realist Bohm interpretation and many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics do not make such a revolutionary break with the concepts of classical physics. Underdetermination problem Another argument against scientific realism, deriving from the underdetermination problem , is not so historically motivated as these others. It claims that observational data can in principle be explained by multiple theories that are mutually incompatible.
Realists might counter by saying that there have been few actual cases of underdetermination in the history of science. Usually the requirement of explaining the data is so exacting that scientists are lucky to find even one theory that fulfills it.
Furthermore, if we take the underdetermination argument seriously, it implies that we can know about only what we have directly observed. For example, we could not theorize that dinosaurs once lived based on the fossil evidence because other theories e. See also.
What is scientific realism? An important strand in the story of the philosophy of science in the past three decades has been a struggle between realists and anti-realists. The debate turns around the most adequate way of interpreting scientific theories that refer to unobservable entities, processes, and properties. Realists maintain that the entities postulated by scientific theories electrons, genes, quasars are real entities in the world, with approximately the properties attributed to them by the best available scientific theories. Instrumentalists, on the other hand, maintain that theories are no more than instruments of calculation, permitting the scientist to infer from one set of observable circumstances to another set of observable circumstances at some later point in time. Important recent contributions to the theory of scientific realism include Miller , Leplin , Putnam , Putnam , and Boyd , Van Fraassen, Churchland, and Hooker , and Gasper It is worth noting at the outset that scientific realism emerges from a tradition of thought in empiricist philosophy of science; but that it provides the basis for a cogent critique of many early positivist assumptions.
Main features[ edit ] Scientific realism involves the two basic positions. First, it is a set of claims about the features of an ideal scientific theory; an ideal theory is the sort of theory science aims to produce. Second, it is the commitment that science will eventually produce theories very much like an ideal theory and that science has done pretty well thus far in some domains. It is important to note that one might be a scientific realist regarding some sciences while not being a realist regarding others.