Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:42:35.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Elements of Successful Scientific Theories Are the Correct Targets for “Selective” Scientific Realism?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Dean Peters
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Selective scientific realists disagree on which theoretical posits should be regarded as essential to the empirical success of a scientific theory. A satisfactory account of essentialness will show that the (approximate) truth of the selected posits adequately explains the success of the theory. Therefore, (a) the essential elements must be discernible prospectively; (b) there cannot be a priori criteria regarding which type of posit is essential; and (c) the overall success of a theory, or ‘cluster’ of propositions, not only individual derivations, should be explicable. Given these desiderata, I propose a “unification criterion” for identifying essential elements.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 3 , July 2014 , pp. 377 - 397
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.)

References

Boyd, R. 1980. “Scientific Realism and Naturalistic Epistemology.” In PSA 1980: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1, ed. Peter D. Asquith and Thomas Nickles, 613–62. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. 2009. “Entity Realism versus Phenomenological Realism versus High Theory Realism.” Unpublished manuscript, London School of Economics Scientific Realism Revisited Conference, April.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N., Shomar, T., and Suarez, M.. 1995. “The Tool Box of Science: Tools for the Building of Models with a Superconductivity Example.” In Theories and Models in Scientific Processes: Proceedings of AFOS ’94 Workshop, August, ed. Herfel, W. E., 15–26. Madralin and IUHPS 1994 Conference, August 27–29, Warsaw. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Cruse, P. 2005. “Ramsey Sentences, Structural Realism and Trivial Realization.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 36 (3): 557–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, P., and Papineau, D.. 2002. “Scientific Realism without Reference.” In The Problem of Realism, ed. Marsonet, M., 174–89. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Earman, J. 1992. Bayes or Bust: A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1983. Fact, Fiction and Forecast. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gower, B. 2000. “Cassirer, Schlick and ‘Structural’ Realism: The Philosophy of the Exact Sciences in the Background to Early Logical Empiricism.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 8 (1): 71–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, C. L., and Rosenberg, A.. 1982. “In Defense of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 49 (4): 604–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1945. “Studies in the Logic of Confirmation.” Mind 54 (213): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1981. “Explanatory Unification.” Philosophy of Science 48 (4): 507–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. A. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1981. “A Confutation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 48 (1): 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. 1984. “Realism without the Real.” Philosophy of Science 51 (1): 156–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, T. D. 2006. “Scientific Realism and the Stratagema de Divide et Impera.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (3): 537–60.. doi:10.1093/bjps/axl021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, A. 1988. “The Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism.” In Relativism and Realism in Science, ed. Nola, R., 229–52. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Newman, M. 2005. “Ramsey-Sentence Realism as an Answer to the Pessimistic Meta-induction.” Philosophy of Science 72:1373–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, D. 2010. “Realism, Ramsey Sentences and the Pessimistic Meta-induction.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 41 (4): 375–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, H. 1971. “Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics: In Praise of Conservative Induction.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 93 (3): 213–55.Google 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 A 25 (2): 159–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, S. 1995. “Is Structural Realism the Best of Both Worlds?” Dialectica 49 (1): 15–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, S. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975a. Mathematics, Matter and Method. Vol. 1 of Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975b. Mind, Language and Reality. Vol. 2 of Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1978. Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Stanford, P. K. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickers, P. 2013. “A Confrontation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 80 (2): 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whewell, W. 1858/1858. William Whewell’s Theory of Scientific Method. ed. Butts, R.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. 1989a. “Fresnel, Poisson and the ‘White Spot’: The Role of Successful Prediction in Theory-Acceptance.” In The Uses of Experiment—Studies of Experimentation in Natural Science, ed. Gooding, D., Pinch, T. J., and Schaffner, S., 135–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gooding, D., Pinch, T. J., and Schaffner, S. 1989b. “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?” Dialectica 43:99–124.Google Scholar
Gooding, D., Pinch, T. J., and Schaffner, S. 2000. “The Scope, Limits, and Distinctiveness of the Method of ‘Deduction from the Phenomena’: Some Lessons from Newton’s ‘Demonstrations’ in Optics.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (1): 45–80.Google Scholar
Gooding, D., Pinch, T. J., and Schaffner, S. 2002. “New Evidence for Old.” In In the Scope of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, ed. Gardenfors, P., Wolenski, J., and Kijania-Placek, K., 191–209. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Gardenfors, P., Wolenski, J., and Kijania-Placek, K. 2006. “Theory-Confirmation and History.” In Rationality and Reality: Conversations with Alan Musgrave, ed. Cheyne, C. and Worrall, J., 31–61. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. 2007. “Miracles and Models: Why Reports of the Death of Structural Realism May Be Exaggerated.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 82 (61): 125–54.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. 2010. “Theory Confirmation and Novel Evidence: Error, Tests, and Theory Confirmation.” In Error and Inference: Recent Exchanges on Experimental Reasoning, Reliability, and the Objectivity and Rationality of Science, ed. Mayo, D. G. and Spanos, A., 125–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Worrall, J., and Zahar, E.. 2001. “Appendix IV: Ramseyfication and Structural Realism.” In Poincare’s Philosophy: From Conventionalism to Phenomenology, ed. Zahar, E., 236–51. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar