1 / 16

Examining the Limits of Scientific Realism: Frost-Arnold's Critique

In "Realism's Unacceptable Explanation," Kareem Khalifa from Middlebury College critiques scientific realism, particularly as presented by the No Miracles Argument (NMA). Khalifa highlights that scientific realism fails to provide acceptable explanations, as it neither makes new predictions nor unifies diverse claims within scientific discourse. Through examples like dormitive virtues and Platonic solids, he explores the shortcomings of realism, arguing that if realism does not fulfill its own standards, it undermines its credibility as a scientific explanation.

justis
Télécharger la présentation

Examining the Limits of Scientific Realism: Frost-Arnold's Critique

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Realism’s Unacceptable Explanation Kareem Khalifa Department of Philosophy Middlebury College

  2. Overview • Background • Unacceptable Explanations • Realism’s Unacceptable Explanation

  3. I. Background • NMA • Some terminology • Frost-Arnold’s Big Picture

  4. I.A. NMA P Unacceptable P1. Science is empirically successful. P2. The approximate truth of scientific theories best explains this empirical success.[probably] C. Scientific theories are approximately true (= scientific realism.) Q best explains P --------------[probably] Q

  5. I.B. Some Terminology

  6. I.C. Frost-Arnold’s Argument Key Ideas: • Some kinds of explanations are unacceptable to scientists. • Scientific realism (as propounded in the NMA) is one kind of unacceptable explanation.

  7. II. Unacceptable Explanations • Examples • Objections & Replies

  8. II.A. Example: Dormitive Virtues Why does opium put people to sleep? Because opium possesses a dormitive virtue.

  9. II.A. Example: Entelechies Why do many organisms develop normally even if dismembered at an early stage of development? Because each species has an entelechy

  10. II.A. Example: Platonic Solids Why are there six planets? Because there are five perfect Platonic solids, each encased in a globe nested within another globe corresponding to the next solid.

  11. II.A. Example: Just-So Evolutionary Stories Why does an organism have trait T? Because its ancestors faced selection pressures P that favor T.

  12. II.B. Objections & Replies • Misdiagnosis objection • Ad Hoc objection • Self-Evidencing Objection

  13. III. Realism’s Unacceptable Explanation • Realism makes no new predictions • Realism fails to unify disparate claims

  14. III.A. No Predictions • Conceptual Objection • Historical Objection, v.1 • Historical Objection, v.2

  15. III.B. No Unification • Brute conjunction • Unifying truth • 2nd Order IBE

  16. Recap • The NMA purports to offer a scientific explanation of science’s empirical success. • However, scientific explanations make novel predictions or unify disparate claims. • Frost-Arnold argues that scientific realism does neither. • So, if he’s right, the NMA fails by its own standards.

More Related