Professional Documents
Culture Documents
May 2008
1
Candidate No: B00527
R3: Successive theories in any mature science will be such that they
‘preserve’ the theoretical relations and the apparent referents of
earlier theories (i.e., earlier theories will be limiting cases of later
theories)
These four claims together argue that the success of science has occurred
because scientific theories describe real entities, and the continued
development of such theories results in a convergence towards absolute
2
Candidate No: B00527
And further: ‘(S2) and (S4) explain (S1), while (S1) and (S3) provide the
warrant for (S4)’.
(1998; pp.1117)
Laudan bases his argument against realism on the fact that (S2) is obviously
false. However, there is no need for the realist to claim (S2); S1 is supported
by empirical evidence in the form of observation of many successful theories
in mature sciences. Whilst it is true that a strict inductive logician or
Popperian would argue that science has been largely unsuccessful because it
3
Candidate No: B00527
Laudan again bases his argument against (S3) in the fact that it is not
true of all cases. He takes aetherial theories of the 1830s as his main
example, and argues that as the theories invoked unobservable entities that
were later discovered not to refer, (S3) must not hold. However, the fact that
we cannot as yet attribute a certain truth-value to the theories we currently
hold has no bearing upon whether or not we are justified in believing it to be
true. The term ‘reasonably’ surely makes it impossible for specific examples
to refute the claim, just because the aetherial theories turned out to be
incorrect does not mean that those who believed in them were unjustified in
doing so.
Thus, the obvious fallacy of (S2) is not detrimental to the realist
argument, as (S2) does not actually seem to be part of it. Neither are the
problems in (S3) detrimental, because justification does not require that the
justified beliefs are true, only that we have good reason for believing them to
be. These points, combined with the re-phrased (S1), then suggest that (S1)
and (S3) together do provide a reasonable justification for (S4); that the
central terms in the theories in the mature sciences do refer. Thus, by
extension, they also suggest that we are justified in believing that the
unobservable entities found in such theories do exist.
The convergence argument can also be used to refute another
important counter-argument to realism, the argument from pessimistic
induction, which observes that many scientific theories of the past that were
once highly compelling have turned out to be false; inferring that as it is
highly likely that all current theories will turn out to be false we are not
4
Candidate No: B00527
5
Candidate No: B00527
6
Candidate No: B00527
contents,’ and as such are not really aware of them when we observe physical
objects in the world around us. For example, when viewing a painting, an
individual would not normally observe each individual piece of sense data
they receive through their ocular systems; they do not observe individually
the shape, colour and possibly texture of each little piece of the painting, they
observe it as a whole. In terms of observational sentences such as ‘this is a
painting of a farmhouse,’ the ability to discern the truth-values of the
sentence and the role the sense data plays in such ‘tokening’ (Maxwell, 1998;
pp.1061) can be explained fully using ‘physical-thing language as our
observational language and treating sensations, sense contents, sense data,
and ‘inner states’ as theoretical (yes, theoretical!) entities’ (Maxwell, 1998;
pp.1061). However, whilst people do not often pay direct heed to the
particular ‘theoretical entities’ of sense data, it does not mean that they
cannot, or indeed that they do not. Thus, by using different perceptual
capabilities people can come to observe directly theoretical entities that were
previously unobserved; the entities were not unobserved because they were
unobservable, but because the right method of observation was not used. In
light of these arguments, it seems the line drawn between observable and
unobservable is entirely arbitrary and thus ontologically irrelevant, and the
realist triumphs over the anti-realist.
The concept of inference to the best explanation is a widely discussed
argument in the dialectic between realism and anti-realism. This ‘canon of
rational inference’ is widely undisputed (Van Frassen, 1998; pp.1075), and a
realist would argue that realism is inherent within it. It states that if there is
good reason for believing that the entities postulated within a theory exist,
then we have good reason for believing in that theory. To take example from
Van Frassen, if ‘I hear scratching in the wall, the patter of little feet, [and] my
cheese disappears’ there is a strong justification for believing that a mouse is
living in the walls of my home. It is clear that such evidence justifies a belief
that the symptoms of mouse cohabitation shall continue, not just in the sense
that they are likely to continue or that the phenomena will continue to support
the belief, but also that the mouse exists in reality.
Thus, if this rule of inference is rationally followed in such everyday
contexts, surely it would be irrational not to follow it when considering
7
Candidate No: B00527
8
Candidate No: B00527
9
Candidate No: B00527
10
Candidate No: B00527
1
There are many more examples not explicated here, both for the purposes of brevity and as
there are surely many more types of observational apparatus yet to be invented. The electron
microscope being a good example of a recent invention that has allowed us to directly observe
what was previously unobservable.
2
Here I use the term ‘direct’ to mean unobstructed or unaided, elsewhere in the essay it simply
refers to the observation of an entity physically observable by any (non-theoretical) apparatus.
3
By their very nature cases of internal perception, such as that of hunger, pain and so on, do
involve direct observation of sense content, however, this does not detract from the argument
as unlike sense content that concerns external objects they are directly observable without an
intermediary of perception.
4
Made possible through, for example, more advanced apparatus of observation being invented.
5
This argument ties in strongly with the no miracles argument discussed above.
6
It is interesting to note that, despite this use of her theories, Cartwright herself come out as a
staunch realist due to her strong beliefs in the truth of causal explanations (Fine, 1984).
Bibliography:
11
Candidate No: B00527
12