Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:05:08.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antirealist Explanations of the Success of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Andre Kukla
Andre Kukla*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scientific realists have argued that the truth(likeness) of our theories provides the only explanation for the success of science. I consider alternative explanations proposed by antirealists. I endorse Leplin’s contention that neither van Fraassen’s Darwinist explanation nor Laudan’s methodological explanation provides the sort of explanatory alternative which is called for in this debate. Fine’s suggestion— that the empirical adequacy of our theories already explains their success—is more promising for antirealists. Leplin claims that this putative explanation collapses into realism on one reading and into vacuity on another reading. But his analysis conflates three doctrines into two, and one of the three avoids both realism and vacuity.

Type
Realism and Anti-Realism
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 63 , Issue S3 , 1996 , pp. S298 - S305
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This material was developed during correspondence with Jarrett Leplin, whose input I gratefully acknowledge. This work was supported by a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

‡

Division of Life Sciences, Scarborough College, University of Toronto, Scarborough, Ontario MIC 1A4.

References

Cushing, J. T. (1991), “Quantum Theory and Explanatory Discourse: Endgame for Understanding?”, Philosophy of Science 58: 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1986), “Unnatural Attitudes: Realist and Instrumentalist Attachments to Science”, Mind 95: 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, A. (in press), “Does Every Theory Have Empirically Equivalent Rivals?”, Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981), “A Confutation of Convergent Realism”, Philosophy of Science 48: 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984), “Explaining the Success of Science: Beyond Epistemic Realism and Relativism”, in Cushing, J. T., Delaney, C. F. and Gutting, G. M. (eds.), Science and Reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 83–105.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1990), Science and Relativism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leplin, J. (1987), “Surrealism,” Mind 96: 519–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leplin, J. (1995). A Novel Defense of Scientific Realism, unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina, Greensboro NC.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1972), Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975), Mathematics, Matter, and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar