Park, Seungbae (2019) Surrealism Is Not an Alternative to Scientific Realism.

Preview

Text post.pdf Download (316kB) | Preview

Abstract

Surrealism holds that observables behave as if T were true, whereas scientific realism holds that T is true. Surrealism and scientific realism give different explanations of why T is empirically adequate. According to surrealism, T is empirically adequate because observables behave as if it were true. According to scientific realism, T is empirically adequate because it is true. I argue that the surrealist explanation merely clarifies the concept of empirical adequacy, whereas the realist explanation makes an inductive inference about T. Therefore, the surrealist explanation is a conceptual one, whereas the realist explanation is an empirical one, and the former is not an alternative to the latter.

---

Export/Citation:

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

Social Networking:

Share |

---

Item Type:	Published Article or Volume
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID Park, Seungbae
Keywords:	Empirical Adequacy, Observables, Scientific Realism, Surrealism, Truth
Subjects:	General Issues > History of Philosophy of Science
Depositing User:	Dr. Seungbae Park
Date Deposited:	11 May 2020 03:09
Last Modified:	11 May 2020 03:09
Item ID:	17168
Subjects:	General Issues > History of Philosophy of Science
Date:	2019
URI:	https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/17168

Available Versions of this Item

• Surrealism Is Not an Alternative to Scientific Realism. (deposited 19 Sep 2019 17:09)
  • Surrealism Is Not an Alternative to Scientific Realism. (deposited 11 May 2020 03:09) [Currently Displayed]

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item