Forever beyond our grasp?
- 146 Downloads
Does science successfully uncover the deep structure of the natural world? Or are the depths forever beyond our epistemic grasp? Since the decline of logical positivism and logical empiricism, scientific realism has become the consensus view: of course our scientific theories apprehend the deep structure of the world. What else could explain the remarkable success of science? This is the explanationist defense of scientific realism, the “ultimate argument.” Kyle Stanford starts here and, using the history of theorizing about biological inheritance as his case study, constructs a convincing argument against the realist consensus in his thought provoking book, Exceeding Our Grasp. 1 Here I will review the core of Stanford’s new argument for instrumentalism and discuss his considered view of theoretical science.
The new argument
Stanford aims to articulate a new and convincing argument for rebelling against the realist consensus based on the historical record and concerns about theory...
I would like to thank Kyle Stanford for entertaining my questions about his views.
- Dietrich M, Skipper RA (forthcoming) Manipulating underdetermination in scientific controversy: The case of the molecular clock. Perspectives on ScienceGoogle Scholar
- Earman J (1992) Bayes or bust? A critical examination of Bayesian confirmation theory. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Godfrey-Smith P (2003) Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Kitcher P (1993) The advancement of science. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Salmon WC (1990) Rationality and objectivity in science or Tom Kuhn meets Tom Bayes. In: Savage W (ed) Scientific theories, vol 14. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 175–204Google Scholar
- Stanford PK (2006) Exceeding our grasp: Science, history, and the problem of unconceived alternatives. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Strevens M (2003) The role of the priority rule in science. J Phil 100(2):55–79Google Scholar
- Van Fraassen BC (1980) The scientific image. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar