Park, Seungbae (2020) Formulational vs. Epistemological Debates Concerning Scientific Realism. [Preprint]

Preview

Text post.pdf Download (311kB) | Preview

Abstract

A formulational debate is a debate over whether certain definitions of scientific realism and antirealism are useful or useless. By contrast, an epistemological debate is a debate over whether we have sufficient evidence for scientific realism and antirealism defined in a certain manner. I argue that Hilary Putnam’s definitions of scientific realism and antirealism are more useful than Bas van Fraassen’s definitions of scientific realism and constructive empiricism because Putnam’s definitions can generate both formulational and epistemological debates, whereas van Fraassen’s can generate only formulational debates.

---

Export/Citation:

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

Social Networking:

Share |

---

Item Type:	Preprint
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID Park, Seungbae
Keywords:	acceptance, aim, belief, epistemological, formulational, Putnam, van Fraassen
Subjects:	General Issues > Realism/Anti-realism
Depositing User:	Dr. Seungbae Park
Date Deposited:	23 Jan 2020 01:53
Last Modified:	23 Jan 2020 01:53
Item ID:	16842
Subjects:	General Issues > Realism/Anti-realism
Date:	2020
URI:	https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/16842

Available Versions of this Item

• Formulational vs. Epistemological Debates Concerning Scientific Realism. (deposited 23 Jan 2020 01:53) [Currently Displayed]
  • Formulational vs. Epistemological Debates Concerning Scientific Realism. (deposited 28 Jan 2020 00:49)

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item