Realizm naukowy wobec zmiany teorii w nauce

Janina Buczkowska

doi:10.21697/spch.2020.56.3.01

Published: 2020-09-30

Vol. 56 No. 3 (2020)

Scientific realism and theory change in science

Janina Buczkowska

Studia Philosophiae Christianae

Section: Papers

https://doi.org/10.21697/spch.2020.56.3.01

Abstract

An important part of the contemporary dispute between scientific realism and anti-realism is an attempt to give a realistic interpretation to the historical facts of the theory change in science. According to L. Laudan, this fact undermines not only the most important argument for scientific realism but also the most important theses of this position. The argument contested by Laudan is the H. Putnam’s claim that the huge success of science in predicting novel phenomena and developing new technologies proves at least the approximate truth of scientific theories. Laudan, however, shows facts from the history of science when successful theories have turned out to be false over time. A related argument against realism called Pessimistic Induction (PI). According to PI, since previous theories that had been successful turned out to be false from the perspective of newer ones, also current successful theories may turn out to be false in the future. This undermines the thesis that the predictive success of a theory is related to its approximate truthfulness. Therefore, an important challenge for scientific realism is to reconcile its theses with the facts of theory change in science. The most significant solutions to this problem are provided by structural realism proposed by J. Worrall and semirealism by A. Chakrawartty. Both positions adopt the same strategy of defending realism known as divide et impera, stating that not all theories, but only parts of them that are directly related to success, meet the theses of realism. Scientific realism in these formulations is largely limited and weakened. The aim of the article is to present these solutions and show, on the one hand, realistic answers to the PI argument provided by these positions, and on the other hand, the limitations that result from them for scientific realism. The weakened version of realism they propose is also not free from significant difficulties to which both structural realism and semirealism must respond. The identification of these difficulties may be helpful for the further development of the realistic position.

--------------

Received: 05/02/2020. Reviewed: 11/03/2020. Accepted: 24/03/2020

Keywords:

scientific realism, convergent realism, structural realism, semirealism, approximate truth, divide et impera strategy

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Janina Buczkowska, Structural realism and the problem of representation in science in the context of the dispute over scientific realism , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 56 No. 4 (2020)
Janina Buczkowska, SOME REMARKS CONCERNING THE REFERENCE OF MENTAL AND LANGUAGE REPRESENTATIONS , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 56 No. S1 (2020)
Janina Buczkowska, Linguistic meaning and context from the perspective of contextualism and semantic minimalism , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 52 No. 2 (2016)
Janina Buczkowska, The cognitive origins of language and the informational structure of linguistic meaning , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 51 No. 4 (2015)
Janina Buczkowska, The concept of mental representations and the problem of intentionality according to teleosemantics , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 55 No. 4 (2019)
Janina Buczkowska, Jan Krokos, Anna Lemańska, Adam Świeżyński, Does Physics Point to the Existence of Transcendence? Discussion of the Book: "Fizyk w jaskini światów" ["A Physicist in the Cave of Worlds"] by Krzysztof A. Meissner (conversation with Jerzy Sosnowski), Biblioteka Więzi, Vol. 389, Warszawa 2023 , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 59 No. 2 (2023)
Janina Buczkowska, The Relationships Between Successive Theories and Ways of Responding to the Pessimistic Induction Argument , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 57 No. 2 (2021)
Janina Buczkowska, Rules of use and the normativity of meaning , Studia Philosophiae Christianae: Vol. 53 No. 4 (2017)

Download files

PDF (Język Polski)

Citation rules

Buczkowska, J. (2020). Scientific realism and theory change in science. Studia Philosophiae Christianae, 56(3), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.21697/spch.2020.56.3.01

Cited by / Share

References

Boyd R.N., On the Current Status of the Issue of Scientific Realism, Erkenntnis 19(1983)1-3, 45-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00174775
Google Scholar

Chakravartty A., Semirealism, Studies in History and Philosophy of Sciences 29(1998)3, 391-408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(98)00013-2
Google Scholar

Chakravartty A., Truth and Representation in Science: Two Inspirations from Art, w: Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in Art and Science, red. R. Frigg, M. Hunter, Springer, Dordrecht 2010, 33-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3851-7_3
Google Scholar

Doppelt G., From Standard Scientific Realism and Structural Realism to Best Current Theory Realism, Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42(2011)2, 295-316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-011-9167-8
Google Scholar

Fahrbach L., How the Growth of Science Ends Theory Change, Synthese 180(2011)2, 139-155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9602-0
Google Scholar

Grobler A., Metodologia nauk, Wydawnictwo Aureus – Wydawnictwo Znak, Kraków 2008.
Google Scholar

Grobler A., Prawda a względność, Wydawnictwo Aureus, Kraków 2000.
Google Scholar

Hacking I., Eksperymentowanie a realizm naukowy, tłum. z ang. D. Sobczyńska, w: Spór o realizm naukowy, red. M. Kotowski, Oficyna Naukowa PFF, Wrocław, 29-65.
Google Scholar

Howson C., Exhuming the No Miracles Argument, Analysis 73(2013)2, 205-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/ant012
Google Scholar

Howson, C., Hume’s Problem: Induction and the Justification of Belief, The Clarendon Press, Oxford 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198250371.001.0001
Google Scholar

Jodkowski K., Teza o niewspółmierności w ujęciu Thomasa Kuhna i Paula Feyerabenda, Wydawnictwo UMCS, Lublin 1984.
Google Scholar

Kotowski M., O rozwoju realizmu naukowego jako selektywnego sceptycyzmu, Filozofia Nauki 22(2014)3, 105-123.
Google Scholar

Kotowski M., Realizm zreformowany. Filozofia Iana Hackinga a spór o status poznawczy wiedzy naukowej, Oficyna Naukowa PFF, Wrocław 2016.
Google Scholar

Kuhn T.S., Struktura rewolucji naukowych, tłum. z ang. H. Ostromęcka, Fundacja Aletheia, Warszawa 2001.
Google Scholar

Laudan L., Obalenie realizmu konwergentnego, tłum. z ang. M. Kotowski w: Spór o realizm naukowy, red. M. Kotowski, Oficyna Naukowa PFF, Wrocław 2018, 29-65.
Google Scholar

Lyons D.T., Four Challenges to Epistemic Scientific Realism – and the Socratic Alternative, Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 9(2018)1, 146-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4245/sponge.v9i1.26993
Google Scholar

Musgrave A., Ostateczny argument za realizmem naukowym, tłum. z ang. M. Kotowski, w: Spór o realizm naukowy, red. M. Kotowski, Oficyna Naukowa PFF, Wrocław 2018, 89-116.
Google Scholar

Park S., On Treating Past and Present Scientific Theories Differently, Kriterion 31(2017)1, 63-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/krt-2017-310105
Google Scholar

Post H., Correspondence, invariance and heuristics, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2(1971)3, 213-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(71)90042-2
Google Scholar

Psillos S., Knowing the Structure of Nature, Palgrave McMillan, New York 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230234666
Google Scholar

Psillos S., Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth, Routledge, London 1999.
Google Scholar

Putnam H., What is Mathematical Truth?, w: Mathematics, Matter and Method, Collected Papers, Vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge1975, 60-78.
Google Scholar

Saatsi J., Grasping at Realist Straws, Metascience 18(2009)3, 355-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-009-9299-1
Google Scholar

Saatsi J., Reconsidering the Fresnel-Maxwell theory shift: how the realist can have her cake and EAT it too, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36(2005)3, 509-538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.07.007
Google Scholar

Stanford P.K., Catastrophism, Uniformitarianism, and a Scientific Realism Debate. That Makes a Difference, Philosophy of Science 82(2015)5, 867-878. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/683325
Google Scholar

Suppe F., The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism, University of Illinois Press, Urbana 1989.
Google Scholar

Van Fraassen B.C., The Scientific Image, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1980. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198244274.001.0001
Google Scholar

Van Frassen B.C., Representation: The problem for Structuralism, Philosophy of Science 73(2006)5, 536-547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/518323
Google Scholar

Vickers P., Understanding the Selective Realist Defence Against the PMI, Synthese 194(2017)9, 3221-3232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1082-4
Google Scholar

Worrall J., Miracles and Models: Why Reports of the Death of Structural Realism May Be Exaggerated, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 61(2007)10, 125-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246100009772
Google Scholar

Worrall J., Realizm strukturalny. To co najlepsze z dwóch światów, tłum. z ang. M. Kotowski w: Spór o realizm naukowy, red. M. Kotowski, Oficyna Naukowa PFF, Wrocław 2018, 145-175.
Google Scholar

Wray K.B., Pessimistic Induction and the Exponential Growth of Science Reassessed, Synthese 190(2013)18, 4321-4330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0276-2
Google Scholar