Devitt, Michael (2009) ARE UNCONCEIVED ALTERNATIVES A PROBLEM FOR SCIENTIFIC REALISM? In: UNSPECIFIED.

Microsoft Word (.doc) Unconceived_Alternatives.doc Download (75kB)

Abstract

Kyle Stanford starts his a recent book, Exceeding Our Grasp, with the claim that “the most powerful challenge to scientific realism has yet to be formulated” (2006: 9). He goes on to formulate what he takes to be that challenge, offering a version of the pessimistic meta-induction that includes elements from the underdetermination argument. I have previously labeled the meta-induction “the most powerful argument against scientific realism”. I did so because “it rests on plausible claims about the history of science”. Stanford brings out just how plausible such claims can be. I think his version of the meta-induction is indeed the most powerful challenge. However, I think the challenge can be met. I shall be drawing on earlier discussions in “Scientific Realism” (2005) and Realism and Truth (1997). I start by setting out what I take scientific realism to be, followed by a brief summary of my response to the underdetermination argument against it. The paper begins in earnest with my response to the pessimistic meta-induction. Against this background, I will turn to Stanford’s argument.

---

Export/Citation:

EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL

Social Networking:

Share |

---

Item Type:	Conference or Workshop Item (UNSPECIFIED)
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID Devitt, Michael
Depositing User:	Justin Sytsma
Date Deposited:	03 Jul 2009
Last Modified:	07 Oct 2010 15:18
Item ID:	4745
Date:	2009
URI:	https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/4745

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item