Scientific Realism and the Future Development of Science
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Nickles raises many original objections against scientific realism. One of them holds that scientific realism originates from the end of history illusion. I reply that this objection is self-defeating and commits the genetic fallacy. Another objection is that it is unknowable whether our descendants will regard our current mature theories as true or false. I reply that this objection entails skepticism about induction, leading to skepticism about the world, which is inconsistent with the appeal to the end of history illusion. Finally, I argue that we have an inductive rationale for thinking that will lead our descendants to regard our current mature theories as true.
Downloads
Article Details
By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license to works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees, for any purpose except commercial. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY-NC: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode.
References
Alai M. (2017), “Resisting the Historical Objections to Realism: Is Doppelt’s a Viable Solution?” Synthese 194 (9): 3267–3290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1087-z
View in Google Scholar
Fahrbach L. (2011), “How the Growth of Science Ends Theory Change,” Synthese 180 (2): 139–155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9602-0
View in Google Scholar
Hume D. (1888/1978), A Treatise of Human Nature, L.A. Selby-Bigge and P.H. Nidditch (eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
View in Google Scholar
Kuhn T. (1962/1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
View in Google Scholar
Mizrahi M. (2013), “The Pessimistic Induction: A Bad Argument Gone Too Far,” Synthese 190 (15): 3209–3226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0138-3
View in Google Scholar
Mizrahi M. (2015), “Historical Inductions: New Cherries, Same Old Cherry-Picking,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 29 (2): 129–148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2015.1119413
View in Google Scholar
Mizrahi M. (2016), “The History of Science as a Graveyard of Theories: A Philosophers’ Myth,” International Studies in Philosophy of Science 30 (3): 263–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2017.1316113
View in Google Scholar
Nickles T. (2016), “Perspectivism Versus a Completed Copernican Revolution,” Axiomathes 26: 367–382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-016-9316-0
View in Google Scholar
Nickles T. (2017), “Cognitive Illusions and Nonrealism: Objections and Replies,” [in:] Varieties of Scientific Realism: Objectivity and Truth in Science, E. Agazzi (ed), Springer International Publishing AG: 151–163.
View in Google Scholar
Nickles T. (2018), “Prospective versus Retrospective Points of View in Theory of Inquiry: Toward a Quasi-Kuhnian History of the Future,” [in:] Aspect Perception after Wittgenstein: Seeing-as and Novelty, M. Beaney, B. Harrington, D. Shaw (eds), Routledge, London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315732855-7
View in Google Scholar
Nickles T. (forthcoming), “Do Cognitive Illusions Tempt Strong Realists?” [in:] New Approaches to Scientific Realism, W.J. Gonzales (ed), forthcoming.
View in Google Scholar
Park S. (2011), “A Confutation of the Pessimistic Induction,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42 (1): 75–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-010-9130-0
View in Google Scholar
Park S. (2017), “Why Should We Be Pessimistic about Antirealists and Pessimists?,” Foundations of Science 22 (3): 613–625. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-016-9490-y
View in Google Scholar
Park S. (2018a), “Justifying the Special Theory of Relativity with Unconceived Methods,” Axiomathes 28 (1): 53–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-017-9336-4
View in Google Scholar
Park S. (2018b), “The Anti-Induction for Scientific Realism,” Grazer Philosophische Studien 95 (3): 329–342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-000044
View in Google Scholar
Park S. (2018c), “Optimistic Realism over Selectivism,” Kriterion: Journal of Philosophy (early view).
View in Google Scholar
Park S. (2018d), “The Pessimistic Induction and the Golden Rule,” Problemos 93: 70–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Problemos.2018.93.11752
View in Google Scholar
Park S. (2018e), “In Defense of the Epistemic Imperative,” Axiomathes 28 (4): 435–446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-018-9371-9
View in Google Scholar
Park S. (forthcoming), “Localism vs. Individualism for the Scientific Realism Debate,” Philosophical Papers.
View in Google Scholar
Psillos S. (1999), Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth, Routledge, New York.
View in Google Scholar
Putnam H. (1975), Mathematics, Matter and Method (Philosophical Papers, vol. 1), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
View in Google Scholar
Quoidbach J., Gilbert D., Wilson T. (2013), “The End of History Illusion,” Science 339 (6115): 96–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1229294
View in Google Scholar
Salmon W. (1984), Logic, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
View in Google Scholar
Sample M. (2015), “Stanford’s Unconceived Alternatives from the Perspective of Epistemic Obligations,” Philosophy of Science 82 (5): 856–866. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/683324
View in Google Scholar
Wray B. (2013), “Pessimistic Induction and the Exponential Growth of Science Reassessed,” Synthese 190 (18): 4321–4330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0276-2
View in Google Scholar