Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:57:26.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Realist Ennui and the Base Rate Fallacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

P. D. Magnus  and
Craig Callender
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The no-miracles argument and the pessimistic induction are arguably the main considerations for and against scientific realism. Recently these arguments have been accused of embodying a familiar, seductive fallacy. In each case, we are tricked by a base rate fallacy, one much-discussed in the psychological literature. In this paper we consider this accusation and use it as an explanation for why the two most prominent ‘wholesale’ arguments in the literature seem irresolvable. Framed probabilistically, we can see very clearly why realists and anti-realists have been talking past one another. We then formulate a dilemma for advocates of either argument, answer potential objections to our criticism, discuss what remains (if anything) of these two major arguments, and then speculate about a future philosophy of science freed from these two arguments. In so doing, we connect the point about base rates to the wholesale/retail distinction; we believe it hints at an answer of how to distinguish profitable from unprofitable realism debates. In short, we offer a probabilistic analysis of the feeling of ennui afflicting contemporary philosophy of science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , July 2004 , pp. 320 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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 paper grew out of discussions in the scientific realism reading group at the University of California, San Diego in 2001–2; we are grateful for those discussions and to Mark Newman, Carl Hoefer, Peter Lewis, Elliott Sober, Stathis Psillos, Colin Howson, Jonathan Cohen, and two anonymous referees for comments on previous versions of this paper.

References

Blackburn, Simon (2002), “Realism: Deconstructing the Debate”, Realism: Deconstructing the Debate 15:111–133.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard [N.] (1982), “Scientific Realism and Naturalistic Epistemology”, in Peter D. Asquith and Ronald Giere (eds.), PSA 1980, vol. 2:613–662.Google Scholar
Callender, Craig, and Huggett, Nick, (eds.) (2001), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale: Contemporary Theories in Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casscells, Ward, Schoenberger, Arno, and Graboys, Thomas B. (1978), “Interpretation by Physicians of Clinical Laboratory Results”, Interpretation by Physicians of Clinical Laboratory Results 299:999–1001.Google ScholarPubMed
Chisholm, Roderick (2003), “The Problem of the Criterion”, in Pojman, Louis (ed.), The Theory of Knowledge: Classical and Contemporary Readings, 3d ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2003, 9–17.Google Scholar
Cordero, Alberto (2001), “Realism and Underdetermination: Some Clues From the Practices-Up”, Realism and Underdetermination: Some Clues From the Practices-Up 68 (Proceedings): S301–S312.Google Scholar
Dorling, Jon (1992), “Bayesian Conditionalization Resolves Positivist/Realist Disputes”, Bayesian Conditionalization Resolves Positivist/Realist Disputes 89:362–382.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur (1984), “The Natural Ontological Attitude”, in Leplin, Jarrett (ed.), Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 83–107.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur (1991), “Piecemeal Realism”, Piecemeal Realism 61:79–96.Google Scholar
Franklin, Allen (1986), The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howson, Colin (2000), Hume's Problem: Induction and the Justification of Belief. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (2001a), “Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy”, Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy 110:151–197.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (2001b), Science, Truth, and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korb, Kevin B. (1991), “Discussion: Explaining Science”, Discussion: Explaining Science 42:239–253.Google Scholar
Kukla, André (1998), Studies in Scientific Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1981), “A Confutation of Convergent Realism”, A Confutation of Convergent Realism 48:19–49.Google Scholar
Lewis, Peter (2001), “Why the Pessimistic Induction is a Fallacy”, Why the Pessimistic Induction is a Fallacy 129:371–380.Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter (1994), “Truth, Existence, and the Best Explanation”, in Derksen, Anthony A. (ed.), The Scientific Realism of Rom Harré. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press, 89–111.Google Scholar
Maddy, Penelope (2001), “Naturalism: Friends and Foes”, in James E. Tomberlin (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives 15:37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, P. D. (2003a), Underdetermination and the Claims of Science. Ph.D. Disseration. La Jolla CA: University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Magnus, P. D. (2003b), “Success, Truth, and the Galilean Strategy”, Success, Truth, and the Galilean Strategy 54:465–474.Google Scholar
Meehl, Paul E., and Rosen, Albert (1955), “Antecedent Probability and the Efficiency of Psychometric Signs, Patterns, or Cutting Scores”, Antecedent Probability and the Efficiency of Psychometric Signs, Patterns, or Cutting Scores 52 (1955): 194–216..Google ScholarPubMed
Psillos, Stathis (1999), Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks the Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1990), “Contrastive Empiricism” in Savage, C. Wade (ed.), Scientific Theories. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 14. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 392–410.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel (1982), “Evidential Impact of Base Rates”, in Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, and Tversky, Amos (eds.), Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worrall, John (1989), “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?”, Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds? 43:99–124.Google Scholar