The contemporary scientific realism debate centers around the realist’s claim that successful sci... more The contemporary scientific realism debate centers around the realist’s claim that successful scientific theories are at least approximately true. Realists, such as Hilary Putnam justify this claim by arguing that it would be a miracle were our successful scientific theories not at least approximately true. Denying the possibility of miracles, the scientific realist must defend a theory’s approximate truth as the only possible explanation for its success. Anti-realist Bas van Fraassen responds to the realist’s argument by offering a Darwinian explanation for the success of scientific theories, an explanation that involves neither truth nor miracles: we have successful theories because we reject those that do not succeed. Realists object that – although van Fraassen’s alternative may explain why we have successful theories – it fails to explain why any particular theory is successful. Striking at realism from another direction, Larry Laudan offers a list of historically successful sc...
Uploads
Papers by Eric Herod