DOCSLIB.ORG

Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism Author(s): Curtis Forbes Source: Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2018) 1-11. Published by: The University of Toronto DOI: 10.4245/sponge.v9i1. EDITORIALOFFICES Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Room 316 Victoria College, 91 Charles Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1K7 [email protected] Published online at jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/SpontaneousGenerations ISSN 1913 0465 Founded in 2006, Spontaneous Generations is an online academic journal published by graduate students at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto. There is no subscription or membership fee. Spontaneous Generations provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism Curtis Forbes* I. Introduction “Philosophy,” Plato’s Socrates said, “begins in wonder” (Theaetetus, 155d). Two and a half millennia later, Alfred North Whitehead saw fit to add: “And, at the end, when philosophical thought has done its best, the wonder remains” (1938, 168). Nevertheless, we tend to no longer wonder about many questions that would have stumped (if not vexed) the ancients: “Why does water expand when it freezes?” “How can one substance change into another?” “What allows the sun to continue to shine so brightly, day after day, while all other sources of light and warmth exhaust their fuel sources at a rate in proportion to their brilliance?” Whitehead’s addendum to Plato was not wrong, however, in the sense that we derive our answers to such questions from the theories, models, and methods of modern science, not the systems, speculations, and arguments of modern philosophy. Like philosophy, science often begins in wonder; but when scientific inquiry has done its best, it would seem, the wonder doesnot always remain. Ex cathedra, the scientific image of reality found in our current best scientific theories, inculcated in our science classrooms, and artfully presented through more popular media proffers far more answers than, say, Aristotle’s treatises on natural philosophy ever could; these answers, furthermore, * Curtis Forbes recently received his PhD from the University of Toronto’s Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology. His on-going research project aims to make the scientific realism question more personal than is usual—rather than trying to determine which philosophical interpretation of science is best per se, his research asks how we might determine which interpretation is best for specific people. Not coincidentally, he spends much of his free time wondering whether, why, and how much he himself should believe about the modern scientific worldview. Spontaneous Generations 9:1 (2018) ISSN 1913-0465. University of Toronto. Copyright 2018 by the HAPSAT Society. Some rights reserved. 1 C. Forbes The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate seem vastly more precise, accurate, deep, consilient, elegant, empirically sound, and widely accepted than any given by the modern scientific worldview’s alternatives and predecessors. Making sense of reality through the lenses of our current best scientific theories can leave a curious person feeling immensely proud of our collective epistemic achievements, incredibly intellectually satisfied, and utterly convinced that the picture of reality painted by these theories is true (at least approximately speaking). But philosophers can’t help wondering: is that picture true, even as an approximation? Is our world really the way modern physical theory describes it, abuzz with various unobservable (though perhaps detectable) entities whose causal interactions make everything appear to us as it does? Is it the aim of empirical science to discover some hidden reality behind our everyday experience, and thereby satisfy our wonder? Is that even possible? These are distinctly philosophical questions, for although they are questions about the epistemic outcomes, long-term potential, and ultimate aims of scientific inquiry, scientific inquiry itself is unable toanswer them satisfactorily. The theories of modern science, taken as true, provide extremely satisfying explanations when we wonder why ice has more volume than water, why iron turns to rust, or why the sun keeps shining day after day. But when we wonder whether these theories are true, whether the methods of empirical science could ever help us arrive at true theories in the first place, or whether scientific inquiry even aims to arrive at such theories, wehave reached the limits of science and entered the domain of philosophy. “Scientific realism” refers to any philosophical thesis that constitutes an affirmative answer to one or more of the questions above, e.g., byasserting that the theories of modern science paint an approximately true picture of unobservable reality, that scientific inquiry is capable of arriving at approximately true theories (even if it hasn’t yet), and/or that the governing aim of scientific inquiry is to arrive at such theories (even if it never will). Whether they understand it as a metaphysical, epistemological, or axiological thesis, casual observation suggests that the average person finds some form of scientific realism to be intuitively correct; formal surveys establish that most academic philosophers do as well (Bourget and Chalmers 2014, 481). Nevertheless, realist interpretations of science certainly have their detractors, and the ongoing debate between realists and anti-realists has been a central part of philosophical thinking about science for at least the last four decades. Thinking earnestly about the merits of scientific realism now requires navigating contentious historiographical issues, being familiar with the technical details of various scientific theories, and addressing disparate philosophical problems spanning aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology, and beyond. For all these reasons, reviewing the extant literature on the topic can be both fascinating and frustrating. With that in mind, this special Spontaneous Generations 9:1(2018) 2 C. Forbes The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate issue of Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science collects over twenty invited and peer-reviewed papers under the title “The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism.” It was organized in the hope of providing a suitable forum for everyone to pause, catch their breath, and share their current thoughts on this topic. It should present a suitable place for any newly interested party to enter the debate and begin to make sense of the existing literature. Deeply immersed veterans whose thinking has shaped the course of the debate in recent years should find this collection valuable as well, including those who have contributed to it. Ultimately the hope is that this collection will help all curious parties better understand, appreciate, and reflect on the evolution of the scientific realism debate, its current state, and how we might move it forward fruitfully. I will count this collection as a success, however, so long as a few others find it as enjoyable to read as I have, even if, at the end, the shared wonder that drives the scientific realism debate remains. II. Articles For such a thoroughly discussed topic, it might seem strange that ANJAN CHAKRAVARTTY and BAS VAN FRAASSEN—the former a champion of scientific realism and the latter an opponent—have contributed a dialogue entitled “What is Scientific Realism?” investigating that very question. Scientific realism now comes in a variety of subtypes—semirealism, structural realism, entity realism, etc.—as its defenders have tweaked, qualified, and clarified the basic position to fend off various anti-realist challenges. Butas Chakravartty and van Fraassen’s conversation makes clear, more abstract differences between people’s conceptions of scientific realism have not always been sufficiently appreciated. Thankfully, this dialogue clarifies the differences between each author’s conception of scientific realism, revealing some important common ground and better mapping the contested territory. Because it addresses such a basic question, and in doing so reveals the complexity of the dispute, Chakravartty and van Fraassen’s piece provides an ideal place to start for anyone reading through this entire collection. JEFFREY FOSS addresses the debate over scientific realism with a refreshing combination of candour and irreverence. Foss reminds us that our realist commitments to science should be retail rather than wholesale, so “philosophers really should respond to the question, ‘Are you a scientific realist’ with the question, ‘Which bit of science do you have in mind?”’ (26). At the same time, people’s explicit pronouncements might not be the best way to determine their true ontological commitments, for their behaviour often implicitly presumes (or denies) the (likely) truth of various scientific theories. As Foss sees it, regardless of whether we assent to or dissent from a Spontaneous Generations 9:1(2018) 3 C. Forbes The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate realist interpretation of science in the classroom, at conferences, or in our publications,
Recommended publications
  • @)"'*"'O' See Fiont Matter 0039-3681/00$

    @)"'*"'O' See Fiont Matter 0039-3681/00$

    Stud.Hist. Phil. Sci.,Vol. 31, No. I, pp. l5l-112,20o0 @ 20fi) Elsevier ScienceLtd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain @)"'*"'o' see fiont matter www.elswier.com/locate/shpsa 0039-3681/00$ - Rudolf Carnap's oTheoreticalConcepts in Sciencet Stathis Psillos* 1. Editor's Introduction Rudolf Camapdelivered the hitherto unpublishedlecture 'TheoreticalConcepts in Science' at the meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division, at SantaBarbarg Califomia, on 29 December1959. It was part of a symposiumon 'Camap'sviews on TheoreticalConcepts in Science'.In the bibli- ographythat appearsin the end of the volume, 'The Philosophyof Rudolf Camap', edited by Faul Arthur Schilpp, a revised version of this addressappears to be amongCamap's forthcoming papers.But although Camap startedto revise it, he never finisfusdthe revision,r and never publishedthe unrevisedtranscript. Perhaps this is becausevariants of the approachto theoreticalconcepts presented for the first time in the SantaBarbara lecture have appearedin other papersof his (cf. the editorial footnotesin Carnap'slecture). Still, I thinlq the SantaBarbara address is a little philosophical gem that needsto see the light of day. The documentthat follows is the unrevisedtanscript of Carnap's lecture.2lts style, then, is tbat of an oral presentation.I decidedto leave it as it is, making only very minor stylistic chonges-which, exceptthose related to punctuation,are indicatedby curly brack- ets.3I think that reading this lecture is a rewarding experience,punctuated as the lechne is with odd remarksand autobiographicalpoints. One can alnost envisage I Department of Philosophy and History of Science, University of Athens, Athens, Greece Received 28 Apil 1998; in revkedform I September 1998.
  • A Humean Analysis of Scientific Realism 1

    A Humean Analysis of Scientific Realism 1

    Published in Ensaios sobre Hume, Lívia Guimarães (org.), Belo Horizonte (Brazil), Segrac Editora, 2005b. Pp. 89-108. ____________________________________________________________________ A Humean analysis of scientific realism 1 SILVIO SENO CHIBENI Departamento de Filosofia, IFCH Universidade Estadual de Campinas Caixa Postal 6110 – 13083050, Campinas, SP, Brazil web-site: www.unicamp.br/~chibeni – e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: In their criticism of scientific realism, contemporary philosophers of science often assume that this position is incompatible with empiricism, the epistemological thesis according to which all factual knowledge is grounded on experience. Little attention is paid, however, to the roots of empiricism in modern philosophy. The present article aims to contribute to filling this gap, by examining the implications of Hume’s version of empiricism to the issue of scientific realism. It is shown, first, how scientific realism is negatively affected by Hume’s theories of ideas and causality. Secondly, the prospects of overcoming these difficulties by appealing to the method of hypotheses are examined, first through a survey of Hume’s own stand concerning hypotheses, and then by direct philosophical analysis. 1. Introduction In contemporary philosophy of science, scientific realism is commonly thought of as being challenged either by “constructivism” or by “empiricism” (see e.g. Boyd 1984). However, the use of the word ‘empiricism’ in this context is somewhat misleading. The term has originally been coined to designate an epistemological thesis concerning the problem of the sources of knowledge, paradigmatically defended by philosophers such as Locke and Hume. In this 1 Parts of this work were first presented in a conference given in the 3rd Encontro de Filosofia Analítica, held in Florianópolis, Brazil, in October 1997.
  • Quantum Logical Causality, Category Theory, and the Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead

    Quantum Logical Causality, Category Theory, and the Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead

    Quantum Logical Causality, Category Theory, and the Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead Connecting Zafiris’ Category Theoretic Models of Quantum Spacetime and the Logical-Causal Formalism of Quantum Relational Realism Workshop Venue: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Chair for Philosophy (building RAC) Raemistrasse 36, 8001 Zurich Switzerland January 29 – 30, 2010 I. Aims and Motivation Recent work in the natural sciences—most notably in the areas of theoretical physics and evolutionary biology—has demonstrated that the lines separating philosophy and science have all but vanished with respect to current explorations of ‘fundamental’ questions (e.g., string theory, multiverse cosmologies, complexity-emergence theories, the nature of mind, etc.). The centuries-old breakdown of ‘natural philosophy’ into the divorced partners ‘philosophy’ and ‘science,’ therefore, must be rigorously re- examined. To that end, much of today’s most groundbreaking scholarship in the natural sciences has begun to include explicit appeals to interdisciplinary collaboration among the fields of applied natural sciences, mathematics and philosophy. This workshop will be dedicated to the question of how a philosophical-metaphysical theory can be fruitfully applied to basic conceptualizations in the natural sciences. More narrowly, we will explore the process oriented metaphysical scheme developed by philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and Michael Epperson’s application of this scheme to recent work in quantum mechanics, and the relation of these to Elias Zafiris’s category theoretic model of quantum event structures. Our aim is to give participants from various fields of expertise (see list below) the opportunity to exchange their specialized knowledge in the context of a collaborative exploration of the fundamental questions raised by recent scholarship in physics and mathematics.
  • Conversations with Alan Musgrave

    Conversations with Alan Musgrave

    Rationality and Reality STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE VOLUME 20 General Editor: S. GAUKROGER, University of Sydney Editorial Advisory Board: RACHEL ANKENY, University of Sydney STEVEN FRENCH, University of Leeds DAVID PAPINEAU, King’ s College London NICHOLAS RASMUSSEN, University of New South Wales JOHN SCHUSTER, University of New South Wales RICHARD YEO, Griffith University RATIONALITY AND REALITY Conversations with Alan Musgrave Edited by COLIN CHEYNE University of Otago, DDunedin, New Zealand and JOHN WORRALL London School of Economics, London, UK A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN-10 1-4020-4206-X (HB) ISBN-13 978-1-4020-4206-X (HB) ISBN-10 1-4020-4207-8 (e-book) ISBN-13 978-1-4020-4207-8 (e-book) Published by Springer, P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. www.springer.com Cover: Photograph of Alan Musgrave used with kind permission of Gudrun Perin, Guelph, Canada Printed on acid-free paper All Rights Reserved © 2006 Springer No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed in the Netherlands. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements vii Notes on Contributors ix COLIN CHEYNE / Introduction 1 GREGORY CURRIE / Where Does the Burden of Theory Lie? 7 COLIN CHEYNE / Testimony, Induction and Reasonable Belief 19 JOHN WORRALL / Theory-Confirmation and History 31 DEBORAH G.
  • Scientific Realism and Epistemology

    Scientific Realism and Epistemology

    SCIENTIFIC REALISM AND EPISTEMOLOGY 1 Introduction Here are some theses frequently endorsed by scientific realists: R1 The theories of mature sciences are very frequently highly success- ful (where the success of a theory may be articulated in various ways, e.g. the theory passes severe tests, or it makes novel pre- dictions that are confirmed by observation, or it provides a unified explanation of disparate phenomena, etc.). R2 The theories of mature sciences are very frequently true or close to the truth. And so, frequently, the entities, often unobservable, posited by the theories of mature sciences exist. R3 This success is not accidental. Our belief in theories (or in their ap- proximate truth) is frequently justified and amounts to knowledge. R4 The reasoning process by which we come to believe the theories of mature sciences very often is an inference to the best explanation. R5 The reason why we should believe R2 is R1. That is the best ex- planation for the success of the theories of mature sciences is that those theories are very frequently true or nearly true. Here are two theses endorsed by many anti-realists: A1 The apparently well-confirmed theories of mature sciences are very frequently found, in the long run, to be false. A2 We should expect current theories to be falsified in due course (by induction on A1). And here are theses endorsed by some anti-realists: A3 We cannot know that a theory involving commitment to unobserv- able entities is true or close to the truth. A4 Inference to the best explanation is not a reliable means of infer- ring that a theory is true (or approximately true), at least if it in- volves commitment to unobservable entities.
  • Dissertation Abstract

    Dissertation Abstract

    SCIENTIFIC ANOMALY AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LOW-DOSE CHEMICALS: ELUCIDATING NORMATIVE ETHICS AND SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Kevin Christopher Elliott, B.S., M.A. _________________________________ Kristin S. Shrader-Frechette, Director Graduate Program in History and Philosophy of Science Notre Dame, Indiana April 2004 © Copyright by Kevin C. Elliott 2004 All rights reserved SCIENTIFIC ANOMALY AND BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LOW-DOSE CHEMICALS: ELUCIDATING NORMATIVE ETHICS AND SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY Abstract by Kevin Christopher Elliott The notion of “anomaly” has persisted for over 2,000 years, but its precise meaning and significance remains unclear. This dissertation analyzes the importance of scientific anomaly both for the philosophy of science and for ethical decision-making that draws on scientific information. In the philosophy of science, it develops a novel account of anomaly. It first provides a conceptual framework for describing anomalies and critically evaluates previous descriptions by Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Larry Laudan, and Lindley Darden. Using the anomalous contemporary biological phenomenon known as “chemical hormesis” (i.e., beneficial effects from low doses of toxins) as a case study, the dissertation argues for a novel account that emphasizes three features of anomaly. Namely, researchers “characterize” anomalies in multiple ways, scientists use multiple strategies to “confirm” them, and anomalies interact with novel hypotheses in an ongoing, dialectical fashion. The dissertation argues that this account is significant because it facilitates increased understanding of scientific discovery and of the role that value judgments play in science.
  • Theory Choice, Theory Change, and Inductive Truth-Conduciveness

    Theory Choice, Theory Change, and Inductive Truth-Conduciveness

    Theory Choice, Theory Change, and Inductive Truth-Conduciveness Konstantin Genin Kevin T. Kelly Carnegie Mellon University [email protected] [email protected] Konstantin Genin (CMU) May 21, 2015 1 This talk is about ... (1) the synchronic norms of theory choice, (2) the diachronic norms of theory change, and the justification of (1-2) by reliability, or truth-conduciveness. Konstantin Genin (CMU) May 21, 2015 2 This talk is about ... (1) the synchronic norms of theory choice, (2) the diachronic norms of theory change, and (3) the justification of (1-2) by reliability, or truth-conduciveness. Konstantin Genin (CMU) May 21, 2015 3 This talk is about ... (1) the synchronic norms of theory choice, (2) the diachronic norms of theory change, and (3) the justification of (1-2) by reliability, or truth-conduciveness. Konstantin Genin (CMU) May 21, 2015 4 The Norms of Theory Choice Synchronic norms of theory choice restrict the theories one can choose in light of given, empirical information. Konstantin Genin (CMU) May 21, 2015 5 The Norms of Theory Choice: Simplicity Figure: William of Ockham, 1287-1347 All things being equal, prefer simpler theories. Konstantin Genin (CMU) May 21, 2015 6 The Norms of Theory Choice: Falsifiability Figure: Sir Karl Popper, 1902-1994 All things being equal, prefer more falsifiable theories. Konstantin Genin (CMU) May 21, 2015 7 The Norms of Theory Choice: Reliable? Is the simpler / more falsifiable theory more plausible? Yes! Can prior probabilities encode that preference? Yes! Konstantin Genin (CMU) May 21, 2015
  • Regularity Theories

    Regularity Theories

    Regularity Theories Oxford Handbooks Online Regularity Theories Stathis Psillos The Oxford Handbook of Causation Edited by Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock, and Peter Menzies Print Publication Date: Nov 2009 Subject: Philosophy, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science Online Publication Date: Jan 2010 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199279739.003.0008 Abstract and Keywords This article articulates Regularity View of Causation (RVC) with an eye to two things: first, its conceptual development; second, its basic commitments and implications for what causation is. The article has chosen to present RVC in a way that respects its historical origins and unravels the steps of its articulation in the face of objections and criticism. It is important for the explication and defence of RVC to see it as a view of causation that emerged in a certain intellectual milieu. RVC has been developed as an attempt to remove efficiency from causation and hence, to view causation not as a productive relation but as a relation of dependence among discrete events. In particular, the thought that causation is regularity is meant to oppose metaphysical views of causation that posit powers or other kinds of entity that are supposed to enforce the regularities that there are in the world or to explain the alleged necessity that there is in causation. Keywords: Regularity View of Causation, causation, dependence, regularities, metaphysics, regularity theories 1. Introduction David Hume has made available a view of causation as it is in the world that can be called the Regularity View of Causation (RVC). His famous first definition runs thus: ‘We may define a CAUSE to be “An object precedent and contiguous to another, and where all the objects resembling the former are plac'd in like relations of precedency and contiguity to those objects, that resemble the latter” ([1739] 1978: 170).
  • Poincare Conventions Relations

    Poincare Conventions Relations

    Conventions and Relations in Poincaré’s Philosophy of Science ∗∗∗ Stathis Psillos Dept of Philosophy and History of Science University of Athens, Greece & Rotman Institute of Philosophy & Dept of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, Canada e-mail: [email protected] 1. Introduction Henri Poincare’s La Science et l’ Hypothése was translated into English in 1905. One of the first reviews—published already in 1905—was by Bertrand Russell. After praising Poincaré for his “power of co-ordinating the whole domain of mathematics and physics in a single system of ideas” (1905, 412), Russell—in this short by pointed review—put forward the two main interpretations of Poincaré’s thought that subsequently became standard. Poincaré was a conventionalist and a structuralist. According to Russell, Poincaré argued that geometry is wholly conventional and that the principles of mechanics are definitions. He rather quickly dismissed this view by taking the line that conventions are merely hypotheses which have been willingly withdrawn from empirical testing and claimed that they were not really necessary qua a different epistemic category. 1 Interestingly, he spent more time explaining that for Poincaré “science teaches us, not about things in themselves, but about their relations” (1905, 412). As Russell understood Poincaré’s main thesis, “if a really exists, a statement about a has no meaning unless it asserts a relation to a b which also really exists” (1905, 417). His prime disagreement with Poincaré was that he took that statements about qualities of real things are not devoid of meaning but simply unknowable. But apart from that, Russell endorsed this relationist reading of Poincaré and made two important points.
  • PHYSICS, PHILOSOPHY and PSYCHOANALYSIS Essays in Honor of Adolf Grilnbaum

    PHYSICS, PHILOSOPHY and PSYCHOANALYSIS Essays in Honor of Adolf Grilnbaum

    PHYSICS, PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOANALYSIS Essays in Honor of Adolf Grilnbaum Edited by R. s. COHEN Boston University and L. LAUDAN Virginia Polytechnic Institute D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY A MEMBER OF THE KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS GROUP DORDRECHT I BOSTON I LANCASTER Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Physics, philosophy, and psychoanalysis. (Boston studies in the philosophy of science; v. 76) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Physics-Philo sophy-Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Philos- ophy-Addresses, essays, lectures. 3. Psychoanalysis-Addresses, essays;lectures. 4. Griinbaum, Adolf. I. Griinbaum, Adolf. II. Cohen, Robert Sonne. III. Series. Q174.B67 vol. 76 [QC6.21 501s 1530'.011 83-4576 ISBN-I3: 978-94-009-7057-1 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-009-7055-7 DOl: 10.1007/978-94-009-7055-7 Published by D. Reidel Publishing Company, P.O. Box 17,3300 AA Dordrecht, Holland. Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Boston Inc., 190 Old Derby Street, Hingham, MA 02043, U.S.A. In all other countries, sold and distributed by Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, Holland. All Rights Reserved. Copyright © 1983 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland and copyright holders as specified on appropriate pages within. Softcover reprint of the hardcover 15t edition 1983 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any informational storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.
  • Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism

    Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism

    The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism Author(s): Curtis Forbes Source: Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2018) 1-11. Published by: The University of Toronto DOI: 10.4245/sponge.v9i1. EDITORIALOFFICES Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Room 316 Victoria College, 91 Charles Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1K7 [email protected] Published online at jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/SpontaneousGenerations ISSN 1913 0465 Founded in 2006, Spontaneous Generations is an online academic journal published by graduate students at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto. There is no subscription or membership fee. Spontaneous Generations provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism Curtis Forbes* I. Introduction “Philosophy,” Plato’s Socrates said, “begins in wonder” (Theaetetus, 155d). Two and a half millennia later, Alfred North Whitehead saw fit to add: “And, at the end, when philosophical thought has done its best, the wonder remains” (1938, 168). Nevertheless, we tend to no longer wonder about many questions that would have stumped (if not vexed) the ancients: “Why does water expand when it freezes?” “How can one substance change into another?” “What allows the sun to continue to shine so brightly, day after day, while all other sources of light and warmth exhaust their fuel sources at a rate in proportion to their brilliance?” Whitehead’s addendum to Plato was not wrong, however, in the sense that we derive our answers to such questions from the theories, models, and methods of modern science, not the systems, speculations, and arguments of modern philosophy.
  • Private Vices, Scientific Virtues: Using Economics to Think About Science

    Private Vices, Scientific Virtues: Using Economics to Think About Science

    Private Vices, Scientific Virtues: Using Economics to Think about Science THOMAS C. LEONARD Department of Economics Fisher Hall Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544 United States [email protected] phone: (609) 258-4036 fax: (609) 258-5561 1999 Private Vices, Scientific Virtues: Using Economics to Think about Science Abstract This paper makes a case for using economics to study science and its product, scientific knowledge. Traditional theories of science – due mainly to epistemology – imply that science is successful because scientists are selfless truth seekers, and because they rigidly adhere to a method. Post-modern theories of science – due mainly to sociology and literary theory – argue that science cannot be successful, because scientists are neither disinterested nor selfless, and because methodological rules derive from a faulty epistemology. An economic theory of science argues that, contra the traditional view, successful science doesn’t require the restrictive premises of Traditional theory of science, and that, as a result, contra the Post-modern view, successful science is not ruled out when those premises are. An economic theory of science accommodates both a realistic conception of scientific motivation and procedure, and the possibility of genuine scientific success. In so doing, it offers an intellectual means to address a central question in the theory of science: how do self-interested scientists, who have wordly goals, come to produce the collectively beneficial outcome of reliable scientific knowledge. Keywords Economics of science, philosophy of science, bounded rationality, institutions, scientific knowledge, economic methodology 2 1. Introduction This paper takes up a conundrum that immediately presents itself to the economist considering science.