On the philosophical relevance of the miracle argument

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: de Souza, Edna Alves [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2019
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0101-3173.2019.v42n4.04.p47
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/198441
Resumo: In this article, we argue in favor of a sophisticated version of scientific realism, based on an analysis of what we consider to be the strategic element of its defense: the “miracle argument”. Scientific realism is the perspective applicable to our best scientific theories; that is, it applies to entities, processes, and relationships, etc., whether observable or unobservable, which are indispensable for explaining the empirical success of theories, and it applies particularly to those components of the theories that are crucial to achieving new and successful forecasts. The miracle argument is a type of abduction or inference to the best explanation, and is expressed in the famous formulation of Putnam (1975, p. 73): “[Scientific] realism is the only philosophy that doesn’t make the success of the science a miracle.” We analyze and refute two important modes of antirealist argument: pessimistic induction and vicious circularity of inference to the best explanation. We believe that we are justified in defending the basic intuition of scientific realism, supported by a strengthened version of the miracle argument, together with the attributes of predictive novelty and theoretical fecundity. From this perspective, science succeeds in explaining and predicting phenomena, including new phenomena, because its best theories (mature, non-ad hoc, empirically and instrumentally successful, providing new and fertile predictions, etc.) are (partially or approximately) true, and the unobservable entities postulated by these theories actually exist. We conclude that the miracle argument continues to be basic and strategic in the defense of scientific realism.
id UNSP_ea5e6ed8bab946a669c2a5df709fd40a
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/198441
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling On the philosophical relevance of the miracle argumentSobre a relevância filosófica do argumento do milagreAnti-realismMiracle argumentPredictive noveltyScientific realismTheoretical fecundityIn this article, we argue in favor of a sophisticated version of scientific realism, based on an analysis of what we consider to be the strategic element of its defense: the “miracle argument”. Scientific realism is the perspective applicable to our best scientific theories; that is, it applies to entities, processes, and relationships, etc., whether observable or unobservable, which are indispensable for explaining the empirical success of theories, and it applies particularly to those components of the theories that are crucial to achieving new and successful forecasts. The miracle argument is a type of abduction or inference to the best explanation, and is expressed in the famous formulation of Putnam (1975, p. 73): “[Scientific] realism is the only philosophy that doesn’t make the success of the science a miracle.” We analyze and refute two important modes of antirealist argument: pessimistic induction and vicious circularity of inference to the best explanation. We believe that we are justified in defending the basic intuition of scientific realism, supported by a strengthened version of the miracle argument, together with the attributes of predictive novelty and theoretical fecundity. From this perspective, science succeeds in explaining and predicting phenomena, including new phenomena, because its best theories (mature, non-ad hoc, empirically and instrumentally successful, providing new and fertile predictions, etc.) are (partially or approximately) true, and the unobservable entities postulated by these theories actually exist. We conclude that the miracle argument continues to be basic and strategic in the defense of scientific realism.Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Universidade de São PauloUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)de Souza, Edna Alves [UNESP]2020-12-12T01:12:59Z2020-12-12T01:12:59Z2019-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article47-80application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0101-3173.2019.v42n4.04.p47Trans/Form/Acao, v. 42, n. 4, p. 47-80, 2019.0101-3173http://hdl.handle.net/11449/19844110.1590/0101-3173.2019.v42n4.04.p47S0101-317320190004000472-s2.0-85078416576S0101-31732019000400047.pdfScopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPporTrans/Form/Acaoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-01-05T06:21:45Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/198441Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T22:09:28.154172Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv On the philosophical relevance of the miracle argument
Sobre a relevância filosófica do argumento do milagre
title On the philosophical relevance of the miracle argument
spellingShingle On the philosophical relevance of the miracle argument
de Souza, Edna Alves [UNESP]
Anti-realism
Miracle argument
Predictive novelty
Scientific realism
Theoretical fecundity
title_short On the philosophical relevance of the miracle argument
title_full On the philosophical relevance of the miracle argument
title_fullStr On the philosophical relevance of the miracle argument
title_full_unstemmed On the philosophical relevance of the miracle argument
title_sort On the philosophical relevance of the miracle argument
author de Souza, Edna Alves [UNESP]
author_facet de Souza, Edna Alves [UNESP]
author_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv de Souza, Edna Alves [UNESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Anti-realism
Miracle argument
Predictive novelty
Scientific realism
Theoretical fecundity
topic Anti-realism
Miracle argument
Predictive novelty
Scientific realism
Theoretical fecundity
description In this article, we argue in favor of a sophisticated version of scientific realism, based on an analysis of what we consider to be the strategic element of its defense: the “miracle argument”. Scientific realism is the perspective applicable to our best scientific theories; that is, it applies to entities, processes, and relationships, etc., whether observable or unobservable, which are indispensable for explaining the empirical success of theories, and it applies particularly to those components of the theories that are crucial to achieving new and successful forecasts. The miracle argument is a type of abduction or inference to the best explanation, and is expressed in the famous formulation of Putnam (1975, p. 73): “[Scientific] realism is the only philosophy that doesn’t make the success of the science a miracle.” We analyze and refute two important modes of antirealist argument: pessimistic induction and vicious circularity of inference to the best explanation. We believe that we are justified in defending the basic intuition of scientific realism, supported by a strengthened version of the miracle argument, together with the attributes of predictive novelty and theoretical fecundity. From this perspective, science succeeds in explaining and predicting phenomena, including new phenomena, because its best theories (mature, non-ad hoc, empirically and instrumentally successful, providing new and fertile predictions, etc.) are (partially or approximately) true, and the unobservable entities postulated by these theories actually exist. We conclude that the miracle argument continues to be basic and strategic in the defense of scientific realism.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-10-01
2020-12-12T01:12:59Z
2020-12-12T01:12:59Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0101-3173.2019.v42n4.04.p47
Trans/Form/Acao, v. 42, n. 4, p. 47-80, 2019.
0101-3173
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/198441
10.1590/0101-3173.2019.v42n4.04.p47
S0101-31732019000400047
2-s2.0-85078416576
S0101-31732019000400047.pdf
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0101-3173.2019.v42n4.04.p47
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/198441
identifier_str_mv Trans/Form/Acao, v. 42, n. 4, p. 47-80, 2019.
0101-3173
10.1590/0101-3173.2019.v42n4.04.p47
S0101-31732019000400047
2-s2.0-85078416576
S0101-31732019000400047.pdf
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Trans/Form/Acao
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 47-80
application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1808129398267707392