Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:36:26.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Realism and the ‘Pessimistic Induction’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Stathis Psillos
Stathis Psillos*
Affiliation:
London School of Economics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the last two decades, the debate over scientific realism has been dominated by two arguments that pull in contrary directions: the ‘no miracle’ argument and the ‘pessimistic induction’. The latter suggests that the historical record destroys the realist’s belief in an explanatory connection between truthlikeness and genuine empirical success. This paper analyzes the structure of the ‘pessimistic induction’, presents a move—the divide et impera move—that neutralizes it, and motivates a substantive yet realistic version of scientific realism. This move is also compared with Worrall’s and Kitcher’s recent reactions to the ‘pessimistic induction’.

Type
Realism and Anti-Realism
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 63 , Issue S3 , 1996 , pp. S306 - S314
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

†

Many thanks to Robert Almeder, Chris Daly, Peter Lipton, David Papineau and John Worrall for valuable comments on earlier drafts. The research for this piece has been supported by a British Academy Postdoctoral fellowship.

‡

Department of Philosophy, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE.

References

Boyd, R. (1984), ‘The Current Status of the Realism Debate’, in Leplin, J. (ed.) Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 41–82.Google Scholar
Devitt, M. (1984), Realism and Truth. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. ([1906] 1954), The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Reprint. Translated by Wiener, P.. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, C. and Rosenberg, A. (1982), ‘In Defence of Convergent Realism’, Philosophy of Science 49: 604–615.10.1086/289080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1993), The Advancement of Science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laplace, P. S. and Lavoisier, A. (1780 [1894]) ‘Mémoire sur la Chaleur’, Oeuvres Complètes de Laplace. Vol. 10. Paris: Gauthier-Villars, pp. 149–200.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981), ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’, Philosophy of Science 48: 1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984a), ‘Explaining the Success of Science’, in Cushing, J., Delaney, C. F., and G. M. Gutting (eds.), Science and Reality. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press, pp. 83–105.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984b), ‘Discussion: Realism without the Real’, Philosophy of Science 51: 156–162.10.1086/289171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. and Leplin, J. (1991), ‘Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination’, Journal of Philosophy 88: 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, G. (1962), ‘The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 327.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1987), ‘Explanatory Success and the Truth of Theory’, in Rescher, N. (ed.), Scientific Inquiry in Philosophical Perspective. Lanham: University Press of America, pp. 51–73.Google Scholar
Newton-Smith, W. H. (1981), The Rationality of Science. London: RKP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, S. (1994), ‘A Philosophical Study of the Transition from the Caloric Theory of Heat to Thermodynamics: Resisting the Pessimistic Meta-Induction’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 25: 159–190.10.1016/0039-3681(94)90026-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, S. (1995), ‘Is Structural Realism the Best of Both Worlds?' Dialectica 49: 15–46.10.1111/j.1746-8361.1995.tb00113.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, S. (1996), ‘On van Fraassen's Critique of Abductive Reasoning’, The Philosophical Quarterly 46: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975), Mathematics, Matter and Method. Philosophical Papers Vol. 1. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C. (1963), Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: RKP.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. (1989), ‘Structural Realism: the Best of Both Worlds?’, Dialectica 43: 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worrall, J. (1994), “How to Remain (Reasonably) Optimistic: Scientific Realism and the ‘Luminiferous Ether'”, in Hull, D., Forbes, M., and Burian, R. M. (eds.) PSA 1994, Vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 334–342.Google Scholar