Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T11:10:06.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Prospective Stance in Realism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Ioannis Votsis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scientific realists endeavor to secure inferences from empirical success to approximate truth by arguing that, despite the demise of empirically successful theories, the parts of those theories responsible for their success do, in fact, survive theory change. If, as some antirealists have recently suggested, successful theory parts are only identifiable in retrospect, namely, as those that have survived, then the realist approach is trivialized, for now success and survival are guaranteed to coincide. The primary aim of this article is to counter this argument by identifying successful theory parts independently from their survival.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 5 , December 2011 , pp. 1223 - 1234
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I gratefully acknowledge financial support from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) as well as from the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh where, during a visiting fellowship, part of this article was written.

References

Chakravartty, Anjan. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2003. “Preservative Realism and Its Discontents: Revisiting Caloric.” Philosophy of Science 70 (5): 902–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, Clyde L., and Rosenberg, Alexander. 1982. “In Defence of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 49 (4): 604–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1993. The Advancement of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schurz, Gerhard. 2009. “When Empirical Success Implies Theoretical Reference: A Structural Correspondence Theorem.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (1): 101–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, Kyle. 2003. “Pyrrhic Victories for Scientific Realism.” Journal of Philosophy 100 (11): 553–72.Google Scholar
Stanford, Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas C. 2006. “Structure: Its Shadow and Substance.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2): 275–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Votsis, Ioannis. 2011a. “Saving the Intuitions: Polylithic Reference.” Synthese 180 (2): 121–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Votsis, Ioannis. 2011b. “Structural Realism: Continuity and Its Limits.” In Scientific Structuralism, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. A. Bokulich and P. Bokulich, 105–17. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar