, Volume 129, Issue 3, pp 371–380 | Cite as

Why The Pessimistic Induction Is A Fallacy

  • Peter J. Lewis


Putnam and Laudan separately argue that the falsity of past scientific theories gives us reason to doubt the truth of current theories. Their arguments have been highly influential, and have generated a significant literature over the past couple of decades. Most of this literature attempts to defend scientific realism by attacking the historical evidence on which the premises of the relevant argument are based. However, I argue that both Putnam's and Laudan's arguments are fallacious, and hence attacking their premises is unnecessary. The paper concludes with a discussion of the further historical evidence that would be required if the pessimistic induction is to present a serious threat to scientific realism.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Devitt, M.: 1984, Realism and Truth, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. Gonick, L. and W. Smith: 1993, The Cartoon Guide to Statistics, Harper Collins, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Hardin, C. L. and A. Rosenberg: 1982, ‘In Defense of Convergent Realism’, Philosophy of Science 49, 604-615.Google Scholar
  4. Hobbs, J.: 1994, ‘A Limited Defense of the Pessimistic Induction’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45, 171-191.Google Scholar
  5. Kitcher, P.: 1993, The Advancement of Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Kukla, A.: 1998, Studies in Scientific Realism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Laudan, L.: 1981, ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’, Philosophy of Science 48, 19-49.Google Scholar
  8. Leplin, J.: 1997, A Novel Defense of Scientific Realism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Poincaré, H.: 1902, La Science et l'hypothèse, Paris; reprinted 1952 as Science and Hypothesis, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  10. 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, 159-190.Google Scholar
  11. Psillos, S.: 1996, ‘Scientific Realism and the ‘Pessimistic Induction’’, Philosophy of Science 63 (Proceedings), S306-S314.Google Scholar
  12. Putnam, H.: 1975, Mathematics, Matter and Method, Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Putnam, H.: 1978, Meaning and the Moral Sciences, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  14. Worrall, J.: 1982, ‘Scientific Realism and Scientific Change’, Philosophical Quarterly 32, 201-231.Google Scholar
  15. Worrall, J.: 1994, ‘How to Remain (Reasonably) Optimistic: Scientific Realism and the ‘Luminiferous Ether’’, PSA 1, 334-342.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Lewis
    • 1
  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations