Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 59–68 | Cite as

Historical Inductions, Unconceived Alternatives, and Unconceived Objections

  • Moti MizrahiEmail author


In this paper, I outline a reductio against Stanford’s “New Induction” on the History of Science, which is an inductive argument against scientific realism that is based on what Stanford (2006) calls “the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives”. From the supposition that Stanford’s New Induction on the History of Science is cogent, and the parallel New Induction on the History of Philosophy, it follows that scientific antirealism is not worthy of belief. I also show that denying a key premise in the reductio only forces antirealists who endorse Stanford’s New Induction on the History of Science into a dilemma: either antirealism falls under the axe of Stanford’s New Induction on the History of Science or it falls under the axe of the New Induction on the History of Philosophy.


Antirealism New induction Pessimistic induction Problem of unconceived alternatives Problem of unconceived objections Scientific realism 



I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers of Journal for General Philosophy of Science for helpful comments on an earlier draft.


  1. Armstrong, D. M. (2005). Four disputes about properties. Synthese, 144, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bamford, G. (1996). Popper and his commentators on the discovery of Neptune: A close shave for the law of gravitation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 27, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentham, J. (1789/1823). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackburn, S. (2005). Review of Donald Davidson, Truth and predication. The New Republic. November 24, 2005.
  5. Block, N. (1981). Psychologism and behaviorism. Philosophical Review, 90, 5–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chakravartty, A. (2008). What you don’t know can’t hurt you: Realism and the unconceived. Philosophical Studies, 137, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chakravartty, A. (2013). Scientific realism. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2013 Edn).
  8. Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. (1971). The case against B. F. Skinner. New York Review of Books, 30, 18–24.Google Scholar
  10. Cordero, A. (2011). Scientific realism and the divide et impera strategy: The ether saga revisited. Philosophy of Science, 78, 1120–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Devitt, M. (2011). Are unconceived alternatives a problem for scientific realism? Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 42, 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  13. Egg, M. (2014). Expanding our grasp: Causal knowledge and the problem of unconceived alternatives. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axu025.Google Scholar
  14. Fahrbach, L. (2011). How the growth of science ends theory change. Synthese, 180, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2008). Recurrent transient underdetermination and the glass half full. Philosophical Studies, 137, 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kant, I. (1781/1998). Critique of pure reason. (P. Guyer, A. W. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lange, M. (2002). Baseball, pessimistic inductions and the turnover fallacy. Analysis, 62, 281–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis, P. J. (2001). Why the pessimistic induction is a fallacy. Synthese, 129, 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lipton, P. (2005). The truth about science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 360, 1259–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Magnus, P. D. (2006). What’s new about the new induction? Synthese, 148, 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Magnus, P. D. (2010). Inductions, red herrings, and the best explanation for the mixed record of science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61, 803–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mironov, V. (2013). On progress in philosophy. Metaphilosophy, 44, 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mizrahi, M. (2013). The pessimistic induction: A bad argument gone too far. Synthese, 190, 3209–3226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mizrahi, M. (2014). The problem of unconceived objections. Argumentation, 28, 425–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Park, S. (2011). A confutation of the pessimistic induction. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 42, 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Plato, (1997). Parmenides. In M. J. Cooper (Ed.), Plato: Complete works. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  32. Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Psillos, S. (2006). Thinking about the ultimate argument for realism. In C. Cheyne & J. Worrall (Eds.), Rationality and reality: Essays in honour of Alan Musgrave (pp. 133–156). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Quine, W. (1953/1980). From a logical point of view (2nd ed.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rowbottom, D. P. (forthcoming). Extending the argument from unconceived alternatives: observations, models, predictions, explanations, methods, instruments, experiments, and values. Synthese.Google Scholar
  36. Ruhmkorff, S. (2011). Some difficulties for the problem of unconceived alternatives. Philosophy of Science, 78, 875–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  38. Stanford, P. K. (2006). Exceeding our grasp: Science, history, and the problem of unconceived alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williams, D. C. (1966). Principles of empirical realism: Philosophical essays. In H. Ruja (Ed.). Springfield, Illinois: C. C. Thomas.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentSt. John’s UniversityQueensUSA

Personalised recommendations