The debate in the philosophy of science between empiricism (positivism) and realism is not so much a debate concerning howscience is or has been practised, as one concerning how it ought to be practised. Empiricists, for their part, view the aim of science as the affording of truth, and want therefore to exclude from science any activity of a hypothetical nature. Realists, on the other hand, see the aim of science as concerning understanding as well as truth, and view informed speculation about the nature of the real world as a worthwhile attempt to obtain such understanding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). Empiricism Vs. Realism Revisited. In: The Metaphysics of Science-1. Boston Studies in The Philosophy of Science, vol 173. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-3838-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-3838-9_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3837-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-3838-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)