Realism and Antirealism Flashcards
Scientific Realism vs. Anti-realism (or instrumentalism)
Not concerned with the question of whether there
is an independent external world
They for the most part accept that trees and rocks and books and such are real
The concern is whether we can know about that which is beyond observation
More generally, the difference between realism and antirealism is about the stance we take toward that which we cannot observe
Realists aim for
true descriptions of the unobservable
Anti-realists aim for
empirically adequate descriptions of the unobservable
Common ground
We can have knowledge of observables
we should aim for true theories of observables
Disagreeement
Realist hold we can have knowledge of unobservables
Realists think we should aim for true theories of unobservables
No-Miracles Argument
Realism is the only philosophy that doesnt make the success of science a miracle
Hilary Putnam:
Science makes highly accurate predictions
Ani realist response to the no-miracles argument
No explanation is needed
* Theories undergo a selection process
* We select the ones that are accurate
Why are species so well adapted to their environment?
* It would be a miracle were it to happen by chance
* But species were selected for their adaptive behavior
and the ones not able to do so went extinct
The base rate fallacy
You get tested for a SARS-CoV-2
* Rate of false negatives = 0
* Rate of false positives = 5% (virus
free individuals test positive 1 in 20)
* Your result is positive!
* What is the probability that you have
SARS-CoV-2?
Not enough info to awnser you need the base rate
but people will be fast to say 95 percent
if base rate is 1/1000 you only have 2% chance of having it
Does Empirical Adequacy Imply Truth?
- Almost all theories from the history of science have turned out to be false.
- There is no reason to think that current scientific theories are more likely to be true. Most current scientific theories are false.
Pessimistic meta induction argument
1.Almost all theories from the history of science have turned out to be false.
2.There is no reason to think that current scientific theories are more likely to be true. Most current scientific theories are false.
Reply: But perhaps theories are increasingly approaching the
truth. Perhaps theories are becoming more frequently true
The Observable/Unobservable Distinction
Vagueness does not imply a lack of coherence or usefulness.
The Underdetermination Argument
Hypotheses/theories are underdetermined by observation
Probability vs. Likelihood
What is the probability that these are true? you only get likelihoods
Laudan’s Argument: convergent epistemological realism
S1) The theories in the advanced or mature sciences are successful.
S2) A theory whose central terms genuinely refer will be a successful theory.
S3) If a theory is successful, we can reasonably infer that its central terms genuinely refer.
S4) All the central terms in theories in the mature sciences do refer.
Laundans argument problem
four of the five premises of those abductions are either false or too ambiguous to be acceptable
S1) The theories in the advanced or mature sciences are successful.
a theory is successful if it makes substantially correct predictions, if it leads to
efficacious interventions in the natural order, if it passes a battery of standard tests.”
“If we construe ‘success’ in this way, (S1) can be conceded.”
S2) A theory whose central terms genuinely refer will be a successful theory.
The realist’s claim that we should expect referring theories to be empirically successful is simply false.
S3) If a theory is successful, we can reasonably infer that its central terms genuinely refer.
is ultimately an empirical claim and can be tested via the history of science. and is shown to be false
S4) All the central terms in theories in the mature sciences do refer.
What is a ‘mature science’?
