?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Adc&rft.title=Thinking+About+the+Ultimate+Argument+for+Realism&rft.creator=Psillos%2C+Stathis&rft.subject=Realism%2FAnti-realism&rft.description=The+aim+of+this+paper+is+to+rebut+two+major+criticisms+of+the+No-Miracles+Argument+for+Realism.+The+first+comes+from+Musgrave+(1988).+The+second+comes+from+Colin+Howson+(2000).+Interestingly+enough%2C+these+criticisms+are+the+mirror+image+of+each+other.+Yet%2C+they+both+point+to+the+conclusion+that+NMA+is+fallacious.+Musgrave%E2%80%99s+misgiving+against+NMA+is+that+if+it+is+seen+as+an+inference+to+the+best+explanation%2C+it+is+deductively+fallacious.+Being+a+deductivist%2C+he+tries+to+correct+it+by+turning+it+into+a+valid+deductive+argument.+Howson%E2%80%99s+misgiving+against+NMA+is+that+if+it+is+seen+as+an+inference+to+the+best+explanation%2C+it+is+inductively+fallacious.+Being+a+subjective+Bayesian%2C+he+tries+to+correct+it+by+turning+it+into+a+sound+subjective+Bayesian+argument.+I+will+argue+that+both+criticisms+are+unwarranted.+&rft.date=2003-12&rft.type=Preprint&rft.type=NonPeerReviewed&rft.format=application%2Fpdf&rft.identifier=http%3A%2F%2Fphilsci-archive.pitt.edu%2F1536%2F1%2FMUSGRAVE%252DPsillos.pdf&rft.identifier=Psillos%2C+Stathis+(2003)+Thinking+About+the+Ultimate+Argument+for+Realism.+[Preprint]&rft.relation=http%3A%2F%2Fphilsci-archive.pitt.edu%2F1536%2