THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL STATUS OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE STRUCTURAL REALIST ACCOUNT Ioannis Votsis LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE PhD Thesis UMI Number: U185100 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U185100 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 2 To my mother andfather 3 ABSTRACT In this dissertation, I examine a view called ‘Epistemic Structural Realism’, which holds that we can, at best, have knowledge of the structure of the physical world. Put crudely, we can know physical objects only to the extent that they are nodes in a structure. In the spirit of Occam’s razor, I argue that, given certain minimal assumptions, epistemic structural realism provides a viable and reasonable scientific realist position that is less vulnerable to anti-realist arguments than any of its rivals. The first chapter presents an overview of the scientific realism debate, concentrating on the epistemological dimension. The second chapter tracks the development of structural realism, differentiates between several versions, and outlines the objections that have been raised against it. The third chapter provides answers to a large subset of these objections, namely those launched by Stathis Psillos, who spearheads the critique of epistemic structural realism. The fourth chapter offers an attempted solution to M.H.A. Newman’s objection that the epistemic structural realist view, if true, trivialises scientific knowledge. The fifth chapter presents a historical case study of the caloric theory of heat. I utilise the study to answer the pessimistic meta-induction argument. The sixth chapter addresses the argument from the underdetermination of theory by evidence. I argue that epistemic structural realism can potentially restrict the impact of the argument by imposing structural constraints on the set of all possible theories compatible with the evidence. The seventh and final chapter outlines briefly some promising avenues for future research. 4 CONTENTS 1. THE SCIENTIFIC REALISM DEBATE §1. Introduction 8 §2. The Origins and Boundaries of the Debate 8 §3. Scientific Realism 11 • First Approximation • Second Approximation • Third Approximation • General Formulation §4. Arguments in Support of Scientific Realism 17 §5. Scientific Anti-Realism 20 • Constructive Empiricism §6. Arguments in Support of Scientific Anti-Realism 22 • Underdetermination of Theory by Evidence • The Damning Historical Record of Science §7. The Main Realist Obstacles 29 §8. Conclusion 30 2. TRACING THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURAL REALISM § 1. Introduction 32 §2. The Prehistory of Structuralism 34 § 3. The Early Years 35 • Poincare • Duhem • Russell • The Newman Objection §4. The Years in Between 47 §5. Epistemic Structural Realism, Ramsey-Style 51 • Maxwell • Worrall and Zahar §6. Psillos' Objections 60 §7. Ontic Structural Realism §8. Empiricist Structuralism §9. The Main Structural Realist Obstacles §10. Conclusion 3. RECENT OBJECTIONS § 1. Introduction §2. Terminological Issues §3. The Objections Against the Poincarean/Worrallian ESR • Objection PS 1 • Objections PS2 & PS3 • Objection PS4 §4. The Objections Against the Russellian ESR • Russell’s Principles Revisited • Percepts, Phenomena and Observation Sentences • Objection PS5 ■ The First Horn of the Dilemma ■ The Second Horn of the Dilemma • Objection PS6 • Objection PS7 §5. Conclusion 4. THE NEWMAN OBJECTION § 1. Introduction §2. Newman's Bifurcated Challenge • The First Fork: ESR Knowledge Claims are Trivial • The Second Fork: ESR cannot be Salvaged • A Note on the Ramsey-Sentence § 3. Various Replies to the Obj ection • Psillos • Redhead • French and Ladyman • Worrall and Zahar 6 §4. Overcoming Newman's Objection 122 §5. Conclusion 128 5. HISTORICAL CASE STUDY: THE CALORIC THEORY OF HEAT § 1. Introduction 130 §2. The Rise and Fall of the Caloric Theory of Heat 131 • The Pre-Caloric Era • The Caloric Theory of Heat • The Vibratory Theory of Heat • The Demise of the Caloric Theory §3. Scientific Realism and the Caloric 146 • Is ‘Caloric’ a Referential Term? • Is Caloric Central to the Caloric Theory? §4. Structural Realism and the Caloric 162 • The Phenomenological Character of L1-L5 §5. Structural Realism and the History of Science 169 • Is Everything Structural Preserved? • Does Structure Always Survive Intact? • The Criterion of the Maturity of Science §6. What the History of Science Cannot Teach Us 175 §7. Conclusion 178 6. UNDERDETERMINATION §1. Introduction 181 §2. Does Every Theory have Empirically Equivalent Rivals? 182 • Algorithmically Produced Rivals §3. Can we Justifiably Choose between Empirically Equivalent Theories? 188 • Evidential Equivalence §4. Structural Realism and Underdetermination 195 • The Inverse Relation of Epistemic Commitments to Underdetermination 7 • Epistemic Warrant: Structural Realism vs. Rivals ■ Historical Considerations ■ Other Considerations • Taking Stock §5. Conclusion 209 7. SOME PROMISING AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH §1. Introduction 213 §2. Outstanding Issues 213 • From Within • From Without §3. Conclusion 219 BIBLIOGRAPHY 220 8 1 THE SCIENTIFIC REALISM DEBATE 1. Introduction A question in the philosophy of science that has engrossed the minds of many eminent thinkers is the epistemological one of what kind of knowledge, if any, science reveals of the physical world. Answers to this question are typically classified as either realist or anti-realist.1 Structural Realism, as part of its name suggests, is a position on the realist side of the divide. In very simple terms, its advocates hold that our epistemic access to the world, so far as its non-observable part is concerned, is restricted to its structural features. The position can be traced back at least to the beginning of the twentieth century and has recently been attracting renewed interest. My main aim in this dissertation is to evaluate the structural realist answer to the aforementioned question. It seems only prudent then to devote the first chapter to an examination of the scientific realism debate. In what follows, I will delineate the boundaries of the debate, articulate the various positions and identify the protagonists. I will also sketch the main arguments and the corresponding objections and counter-objections. Finally, I will set out the main obstacles for realism. In doing so, I hope to set the stage for structural realism, explain its role in this debate as well as reveal more about the conditions of its inception and its reincarnation about a decade and a half ago. 2. The Origins and Boundaries of the Debate3 Arguably, the scientific realism debate did not really come into its own, i.e. was not independent from general debates about realism, until the twentieth century. The first quarter of the century was marked by a somewhat unsophisticated general realism, 1 Unless otherwise noted, the terms ‘realism’ and ‘anti-realism’ will denote the more specific viewpoints of scientific realism and scientific anti-realism respectively. 2 This widely held impression is confirmed by the recent increase in the number o f publications dealing with structural realism. Note also that in the latest conference o f the American Philosophy of Science Association (PSA 2002), structural realism was central to three out of five papers in the realism section. 3 Detailed overviews of the debate can be found in Boyd (1984: 41-82; 2002) and Psillos (2000b). 9 most memorably the critical realism of Roy Wood Sellars, formed in reaction to the rampant idealism of the nineteenth century. The logical positivists came to dominate the second quarter of the century. In view of the quantum and relativistic revolutions in physics, they found much support for their instrumentalist version of anti-realism. It was not until the 1960s, after a multifaceted attack on logical positivism, that realism was revived under the guidance of such figures as Karl Popper, Grover Maxwell, and J.J.C. Smart. At around the same time, the historically motivated work of Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend inspired new converts to, and new versions of, anti-realism. Realist voices were not kept at bay, however, with Hilary Putnam and Richard Boyd, among others, keeping the debate alive in the seventies. In the early eighties, the independent but equally powerful critiques by Bas van Fraassen and Larry Laudan shaped old problems into new challenges for the scientific realist. The debate as it is carried out today owes much to these developments, especially those that emerged after 1960. The twentieth century gave birth and rebirth to a plethora of realisms and anti­ realisms. The current debate is so wonderfully varied that I would be unable to justly review in one chapter, or indeed pursue in the rest of the dissertation. For this reason I will concentrate on one particular comer of the debate, something that will make my task more manageable. Three threads common to the central realist and anti­ realist positions in this comer of the current debate are the following: