Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 180, Issue 2, pp 139–155 | Cite as

How the growth of science ends theory change

  • Ludwig FahrbachEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper outlines a defense of scientific realism against the pessimistic meta-induction which appeals to the phenomenon of the exponential growth of science. Here, scientific realism is defined as the view that our current successful scientific theories are mostly approximately true, and pessimistic meta-induction is the argument that projects the occurrence of past refutations of successful theories to the present concluding that many or most current successful scientific theories are false. The defense starts with the observation that at least 80% of all scientific work ever done has been done since 1950, proceeds with the claim that practically all of our most successful theories were entirely stable during that period of time, and concludes that the projection of refutations of successful theories to the present is unsound. In addition to this defense, the paper offers a framework through which scientific realism can be compared with two types of anti-realism. The framework is also of help to examine the relationships between these three positions and the three main arguments offered respectively in their support (No-miracle argument, pessimistic meta-induction, underdetermination).

Keywords

Scientific realism Pessimistic meta-induction Exponential growth of science Empiricism No-miracles argument 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bird A. (2007) What is scientific progress?. Noûs 41(1): 64–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butler D. (2008) The great contender. Nature 454: 382–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Curtin C. (2007) Fact or fiction? Living people outnumber the dead. Scientific American 297(3): 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Solla Price D.J. (1963) Little science, big science. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Devitt M. (2008) Realism/anti-realism. In: Psillos S., Curd M. The Routledge companion to the philosophy of science. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Egghe L., Raviachandra Rao I. K. (1992) Classification of growth models based on growth rates and its applications. Scientometics 25(1): 5–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fahrbach, L. (2009). The pessimistic meta-induction and the exponential growth of science. In A. Hieke & H. Leitgeb (Eds.), Reduction and elimination in philosophy and the sciences. Proceedings of the 31th international Wittgenstein symposium (to appear).Google Scholar
  8. Fahrbach, L., & Beisbart, C. (2009). The pessimistic meta-induction and constructive empiricism (manuscript).Google Scholar
  9. Friedman M. (1981) Theoretical explanation. In: Healey R. (eds) Reduction, time and reality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Furner J. (2003) Little book, big book: Before and after little science, big science: A review article, part II. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 35(3): 189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haub, C. (2002). How many people have ever lived on earth? http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx
  12. Hoyningen-Huene P. (1993) Reconstructing scientific revolutions. In: Thomas S. (eds) Kuhn’s philosophy of science. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Kukla A. (1998) Studies in scientific realism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Ladyman J. (2002) Understanding philosophy of science. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Ladyman J., Ross D. (2007) Everything must go. University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lange M. (2002) Baseball, pessimistic inductions, and the turnover fallacy. Analysis 62: 281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laudan L. (1981) A refutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science 48: 19–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leplin J. (1997) A novel defence of scientific realism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Mabe M., Amin M. (2001) Growth dynamics of scholarly and scientific journals. Scientometrics 51(1): 147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meadows J. (1974) Communication in science. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Okasha S. (2002) Philosophy of science. A very short introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Psillos P. (1999) Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. Routledge, New York, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Psillos P. (2000) The present state of the scientific realism debate. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51: 705–728 (special supplement)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sanderson, A. R., Dugoni, B. L., Hoffer, T. B., & Myers, S. L. (1999). Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 1999. http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/studies/sed/sed1999.htm
  25. Stanford P. K. (2006) Exceeding our grasp: Science, history, and the problem of unconceived alternatives. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stanford, P. K. Reading Nature: The interpretation of scientific theories. In L. Sklar (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the philosophy of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  27. Tenopir C., King D.W. (2004) Communication patterns of engineers. IEEE Press, Wiley-Inter- scienceGoogle Scholar
  28. van Dyck M. (2007) Constructive empiricism and the argument from underdetermination. In: Monton B. (eds) Images of empiricism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 11–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Fraassen B. (1980) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Fraassen B. (2007) From a view of science to a new empiricism. In: Monton B. (eds) Images of Empiricism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 337–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williamson T. (2006) Must do better. In: Greenough P., Lynch M. Truth and realism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 177–181Google Scholar
  32. Wolfe, R. M. (2007). Research and development in industry: 2003. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07314/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Heinrich-Heine-UniversitätDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.DüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations