Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T13:15:14.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory Change and Degrees of Success

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Ludwig Fahrbach
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scientific realism is the position that success of a scientific theory licenses an inference to its approximate truth. The argument from pessimistic metainduction maintains that this inference is undermined due to the existence of theories from the history of science that were successful but false. I aim to counter pessimistic metainduction and defend scientific realism. To do this, I adopt a notion of success that admits of degrees and show that our current best theories enjoy far higher degrees of success than any of the successful but refuted theories of the past.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 5 , December 2011 , pp. 1283 - 1292
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 would like to thank Claus Beisbart, Hasok Chang, Martin Carrier, Thomas Müller, Theo Kuipers, Hannes Leitgeb, Gerhard Schurz, Mark Siebel, and Paul Thorn for helpful discussions.

References

Chakravartty, Anjan. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devitt, Michael. 2005. “Scientific Realism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Analytic Philosophy, ed. Jackson, Frank and Smith, Michael, 767–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Paul. 2004. Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennicutt, Robert C. Jr. 2007. “Sloan at Five.” Nature 450 (November 22): 488–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kielan-Jaworowska, Zofia, Cifelli, Richard, and Luo, Zhe-Xi. 2004. Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution, and Structure. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. “Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy.” Philosophical Review 110 (2): 151–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, André. 1998. Studies in Scientific Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladyman, James, and Ross, Don. 2008. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1981. “A Refutation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 48 (March): 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leplin, Jarrett. 1997. A Novel Defence of Scientific Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Peter. 2001. “Why the Pessimistic Induction Is a Fallacy.” Synthese 129:371–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Saatsi, Juha. 2004. “On the Pessimistic Induction and Two Fallacies.” Philosophy of Science 72 (Proceedings): 1088–98.Google Scholar
Schummer, Jochen. 1999. “Coping with the Growth of Chemical Knowledge.” Educación Química 10 (2): 92–101.CrossRefGoogle 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, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, D. B. 2001. “Time and Frequency Measurement at NIST: The First 100 Years.” In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium and PDA Exhibition, 4–7. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
Turner, Derek. 2007. Making Prehistory: Historical Science and the Scientific Realism Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar