Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 13, pp 2941–2955 | Cite as

Inconsistency and scientific realism

  • Juha Saatsi
Article

Abstract

I erect a framework within the semantic view of theories for explaining the empirical success of internally inconsistent models and theories, with scientific realism in mind. The framework is an instance of the ‘content-driven’ approach to inconsistency, advocated by both Norton (Philos Sci 54:327–350, 1987) and Smith (Stud Hist Philos Sci 19:429–445, 1988a, In: Fine A, Leplin J (eds) PSA1988, 1988b), whose ideas my analysis aims to clarify and substantiate.

Keywords

Inconsistency Norton Realism Old quantum theory 

References

  1. Barrett, J. A. (2003). Are out best physical theories (probably and/or approximately) true? Philosophy of Science, 70(5), 1206–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frisch, M. (2004). Inconsistency in classical electrodynamics. Philosophy of Science, 71, 525–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Funkhouser, E. (2006). The determinable–determinate relation. Noûs, 40, 548–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Morrison, M. (2000). Unifying Scientific Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Norton, J. (1987). The logical inconsistency of the old quantum theory of black body radiation. Philosophy of Science, 54, 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Norton, J. D. (2002). Paradox in Newtonian gravitation theory II. In J. Meheus (Ed.), Inconsistency in science (pp. 185–195). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Saatsi, J. (2008). Eclectic realism—The proof of the pudding: A reply to Busch. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 39, 273–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Saatsi, J. (2011). Idealized models as inferentially veridical representations: A conceptual framework. In P. Humphreys & C. Imbert (Eds.), Models, representations and simulations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Saatsi, J. T. (2005). Reconsidering the Fresnel–Maxwell case study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 36, 509–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith, J. M. (1988a). Inconsistency and scientific reasoning. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 19, 429–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith, J. M. (1988b). Scientific reasoning or damage control: Alternative proposals for reasoning with inconsistent representations of the world. In A. Fine & J. Leplin (Eds.), PSA1988 (Vol. 1, pp. 241–248). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  15. Teller, P. (2001). Twilight of the perfect model model. Erkenntnis, 55(3), 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations