This book offers a close and rigorous examination of the arguments for and against scientific realism and introduces key positions in the scientific realism/antirealism debate, which is one of the central debates in contemporary philosophy of science. On the one hand, scientific realists argue that we have good reasons to believe that our best scientific theories are approximately true because, if they were not even approximately true, they would not be able to explain and predict natural phenomena with such impressive accuracy. On the other hand, antirealists argue that the success of science does not warrant belief in the approximate truth of our best scientific theories. This is because the history of science is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The author eventually settles on a middle-ground position between scientific realism and antirealism called relative realism.

Introduces the key arguments and positions in the scientific realism/antirealism debate Examines the key arguments for and against scientific realism in a rigorous manner Develops a position that provides a middle-ground between scientific realism and antirealism

Autorentext

Moti Mizrahi is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Florida Institute of Technology. He is the editor of The Kuhnian Image of Science: Time for a Decisive Transformation? (Rowman & Littlefield, 2018). He is an Associate and Book Reviews Editor of Philosophia (Springer). He has published extensively on the philosophy of science, the scientific realism/antirealism debate, the epistemology of philosophy, and argumentation. His work has appeared in journals such as Argumentation, Erkenntnis, Philosophical Studies, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, and Synthese.

Klappentext

This book offers a close and rigorous examination of the arguments for and against scientific realism and introduces key positions in the scientific realism/antirealism debate, which is one of the central debates in contemporary philosophy of science. On the one hand, scientific realists argue that we have good reasons to believe that our best scientific theories are approximately true because, if they were not even approximately true, they would not be able to explain and predict natural phenomena with such impressive accuracy. On the other hand, antirealists argue that the success of science does not warrant belief in the approximate truth of our best scientific theories. This is because the history of science is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The author eventually settles on a middle-ground position between scientific realism and antirealism called "relative realism".

Inhalt
Preface.- 1. Introduction.- 2. Realism versus Antirealism in Contemporary Philosophy of Science.- 3. Key Positions in the Contemporary Scientific Realism/Antirealism Debate.- 4. Key Arguments for Scientific Realism.- 5. Key Arguments against Scientific Realism.- 5.1. The Graveyard Argument.- 6. Relative Realism: The Best of Both Worlds.- Glossary.- Index.