Doing Away with the No Miracles Argument

Conference paper
Part of the The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings book series (EPSP, volume 2)


The recent debate surrounding scientific realism has largely focused on the “no miracles” argument (NMA). Indeed, it seems that most contemporary realists and anti-realists have tied the case for realism to the adequacy of this argument. I argue that it is mistake for realists to let the debate be framed in this way. Realists would be well advised to abandon the NMA altogether and pursue an alternative strategy, which I call the “local strategy”.


  1. Achinstein, P. (2002). Is there a valid experimental argument for scientific realism? Journal of Philosophy, 99, 470–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achinstein, P. (2010). Evidence, explanation, and realism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boyd, R. (1984). On the current status of scientific realism. In J. Leplin (Ed.), Scientific realism (pp. 41–82). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Duhem, P. (1991). The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ladyman, J. (2009). Structural realism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition). Accessed June 2012.
  6. Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Magnus, P. D., & Callender, C. (2004). Realist ennui and the base rate fallacy. Philosophy of Science, 71, 320–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Norton, J. (2003). A material theory of induction. Philosophy of Science, 70, 647–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific realism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Psillos, S. (2006). Thinking about the ultimate argument for realism. In C. Cheyne & J. Worrall (Eds.), Rationality and reality: Conversations with Alan Musgrave (pp. 133–156). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Psillos, S. (2007). The fine structure of inference to the best explanation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74, 441–448.Google Scholar
  12. Psillos, S. (2011a). Choosing the realist framework. Synthese, 180, 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Psillos, S. (2011b). Making contact with molecules: On Perrin and Achinstein. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Philosophy of science matters: The philosophy of Peter Achinstein (pp. 177–190). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Psillos, S. (2011c). The scope and limits of the no-miracles argument. In D. Dieks, W. J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, T. Uebel, & M. Weber (Eds.), The philosophy of science in a European perspective (Vol. II, pp. 23–35). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Roush, S. (2010). Optimism about the pessimistic induction. In P. D. Magnus & J. Busch (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of science (pp. 29–58). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Saatsi, J. (2010). Form-driven vs. content-driven arguments for realism. In P. D. Magnus & J. Busch (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of science (pp. 8–28). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Stanford, K. (2006). Exceeding our grasp. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43, 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyJohn Carroll UniversityUniversity HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations