Titlebook: Embracing Scientific Realism; Seungbae Park Book 2022 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer

Parallel

同来核对

占线

condemn

In Defense of the No-Miracles Argument,o explain success in terms of empirical adequacy. Surrealism inadequately attributes the success of a scientific theory to the behavior of observables. Predictive similarity is an unsatisfactory explanans for explaining success.

Offbeat

是贪求

In Defense of the No-Miracles Argument,tic and epistemic realism. To reject the NMA for the reason that the success of science does not cry out for explanation is to violate the basic rule for evaluating an argument. Some antirealists reject inference to the best explanation, but they use it themselves to establish their own philosophica

Retrieval

Critiques of the Pessimistic Induction,an argument that earlier theories were false, so current theories are unwarranted. It is arbitrary for antirealists to accept the PI but to reject inference to the best explanation. It is incoherent for antirealists to use evolutionary theory to bolster the PI. The PI has four intrinsic problems, on

FACT

Critiques of Scientific Antirealism,problem of disconcerting questions, and the problem of deceptive speech acts. Antirealists will not and cannot predict theoretical events. Antirealists’ beliefs in their own positive theories are unjustifiable. Moreover, epistemic reciprocalists would not believe antirealists’ theories. Antirealists

刚毅

Six New Arguments for Scientific Realism,alists holds that since the realists of the early twentieth century were right to believe the theories of their time, their present and future philosophical offspring are also right to believe the theories of their times. The argument from undiscovered evidence holds that because T has been supporte

irritation

Critiques of Five Variants of Putative Realism, of realism, as their names suggest. On close examination, however, they are not variants of realism but rather variants of putative realism. In addition, they are so close to antirealism that they are vulnerable to the objections that I raised against antirealism in Chap. ., and as such their adher