pp 1–15 | Cite as

Historical inductions, Old and New

  • Juha Saatsi
S.I.: Conceived Alternatives


I review prominent historical arguments against scientific realism to indicate how they display a systematic overshooting in the conclusions drawn from the historical evidence. The root of the overshooting can be located in some critical, undue presuppositions regarding realism. I will highlight these presuppositions in connection with both Laudan’s ‘Old induction’ and Stanford’s New induction, and then delineate a minimal realist view that does without the problematic presuppositions.


Realism Pessimistic induction Stanford 



A version of this paper was presented at the Unconceived Alternatives Workshop in Durham. I would like to thank the workshop audience. Special thanks to Kyle Stanford.


  1. Bird, A. (2007). What is scientific progress? Noûs, 41, 64–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chakravartty, A. (2007). What you don’t know can’t hurt you: Realism and the unconceived. Philosophical Studies, 137, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang, H. (2003). Preservative realism and its discontents: Revisiting caloric. Philosophy of Science, 70, 902–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cordero, A. (2011). Scientific realism and the divide et impera strategy: The ether saga revisited. Philosophy of Science, 78(5), 1120–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Da Costa, N., & French, S. (2003). Science and partial truth: A unitary approach to models and scientific reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frigg, R., & Votsis, I. (2011). Everything you always wanted to know about structural realism but were afraid to ask. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 227–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leplin, J. (1997). A novel defence of scientific realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Leplin, J. (2004). A theory’s predictive success can warrant belief in the unobservable entities it postulates. In C. Hitchcock (Ed.), Contemporary debates in philosophy of science (pp. 117–132). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Magnus, P. (2010). Inductions, red herrings, and the best explanation for the mixed record of science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61, 803–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McMullin, E. (1984). A case for scientific realism. In J. Leplin (Ed.), Scientific realism. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. McMullin, E. (1987). Explanatory success and the truth of theory. In N. Rescher (Ed.), Scientific inquiry in philosophical perspective (pp. 51–73). Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  14. Musgrave, A. (1985). Realism versus constructive empiricism. In P. Churchland & A. Clifford (Eds.), Images of science (pp. 197–221). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Psillos, S. (1994). A philosophical study of the transition from the caloric theory of heat to thermodynamics: Resisting the pessimistic meta-induction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25(2), 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Psillos, S. (1996). Scientific realism and the ‘pessimistic induction’. Philosophy of Science, 63, S306–S314.Google Scholar
  17. Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Putnam, H. (1975). Mathematics, matter and method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Putnam, H. (1978). Meaning and the moral sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  20. Saatsi, J. (2012). Scientific realism and historical evidence: Shortcomings of the current state of debate. In Samir Okasha, Henk W. de Regt, & Stephan Hartmann (Eds.), EPSA philosophy of science: Amsterdam 2009 (pp. 329–340). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saatsi, J. (In progress a). What is theoretical progress of science?Google Scholar
  22. Saatsi, J. (In progress b). Replacing recipe realism.Google Scholar
  23. Saatsi, J. T. (2005). Reconsidering the Fresnel-Maxwell case study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 36, 509–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sankey, H. (2008). Scientific realism and the rationality of science. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  25. Stanford, K. P. (2006). Exceeding our grasp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stanford, P. K. (2003a). No refuge for realism: Selective confirmation and the history of science. Philosophy of Science, 70(5), 913–925. PSA Proceedings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stanford, P. K. (2003b). Pyrrhic victories for scientific realism. Journal of Philosophy, 100(11), 553–572.Google Scholar
  28. Teller, P. (2001). Twilight of the perfect model model. Erkenntnis, 55(3), 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Worrall, J. (2007). Miracles and models: Why reports of the death of structural realism may be exaggerated. In A. O’Hear (Ed.), Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement (pp. 125–154). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Wray, K. (2013). Success and truth in the realism/anti-realism debate. Synthese, 190(9), 1719–1729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations