Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–13 | Cite as

Unconceived alternatives and the cathedral problem

  • Samuel RuhmkorffEmail author
S.I.: Conceived Alternatives

Abstract

Kyle Stanford claims we have historical evidence that there likely are plausible unconceived alternatives in fundamental domains of science, and thus evidence that our best theories in these domains are probably false. Accordingly, we should adopt a form of instrumentalism. Elsewhere, I have argued that in fact we do not have historical evidence for the existence of plausible unconceived alternatives in particular domains of science, and that the main challenge to scientific realism is rather to provide evidence that there are likely not plausible unconceived alternatives. In the present paper, I contend that we may come to have such evidence in the long run of science. I then investigate the epistemic consequences of the claim that we presently do not have evidence for or against the existence of plausible unconceived alternatives, but that in the future we may come to have evidence against the existence of plausible unconceived alternatives. I argue there are prima facie reasons to endorse a form of voluntarism in this situation according to which scientists and others may rationally be more optimistic or more pessimistic about the truth of our best theories, on the grounds that the widespread acceptance of an obligation to be an instrumentalist threatens to disrupt the proper functioning of science, in part because the domain of application of the problem of unconceived alternatives is unclear.

Keywords

Unconceived alternatives Scientific realism Instrumentalism 

References

  1. Darling, K. M. (2003). Motivational realism: The natural classification for Pierre Duhem. Philosophy of Science, 70, 1125–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Earman, J. (1992). Bayes or bust? A critical examination of Bayesian confirmation theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Fahrbach, L. (2011a). How the growth of science ends theory change. Synthese, 180, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fahrbach, L. (2011b). Theory change and degree of success. Philosophy of Science, 78, 1283–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fine, A. (1996). The shaky game: Einstein, realism, and the quantum theory (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hacking, I. (2000). How inevitable are the results of successful science? Philosophy of Science, 67, S58–S71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ioannidis, J. (2005a). Contradicted and clinically stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294, 218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ioannidis, J. (2005b). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, 696–701.Google Scholar
  9. Kidd, I. J. (submitted). Unconceived alternatives and epistemic humility. Synthese.Google Scholar
  10. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ratcliffe, M. (2011). Stance, feeling and phenomenology. Synthese, 178, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ruhmkorff, S. (2011). Some difficulties for the problem of unconceived alternatives. Philosophy of Science, 78, 875–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ruhmkorff, S. (2013). Global and local pessimistic meta-inductions. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 27, 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shimony, A. (1970). Scientific inference. In R. G. Colodny (Ed.), The nature and function of scientific theories: Essays in contemporary science and philosophy (pp. 79–172). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  15. Stanford, P. K. (2006). Exceeding our grasp: Science, history, and the problem of unconceived alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stanford, P. K. (2009). Scientific realism, the atomic theory, and the catch-all hypothesis: Can we test fundamental theories against all serious alternatives? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stanford, P. K. (2015). Unconceived alternatives and conservatism in science: The impact of professionalization, peer-review, and big science. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-015-0856-4.
  18. Stringer, C. (2012). Lone survivors: How we came to be the only humans on Earth. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  19. van Fraassen, B. (1989). Laws and symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Social and Political StudiesBard College at Simon’s RockGreat BarringtonUSA

Personalised recommendations