Among the most serious challenges to scientific realism are arguments for the underdetermination of theory by evidence. This paper defends a version of scientific realism against what is perhaps the most influential recent argument of this sort, viz. Kyle Stanford’s New Induction over the History of Science. An essential part of the defense consists in a probabilistic analysis of the slogan “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. On this basis it is argued that the likelihood of a theory being underdetermined depends crucially on social and historical factors, such as the structure of scientific communities and the time that has passed since the theory first became accepted. This is then shown to serve as the epistemological foundation for a version of scientific realism which avoids Stanford’s New Induction in a principled and non-question-begging way.
|Number of pages||20|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Jul 2017|
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2016, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
- Absence of evidence
- Evidence of absence
- Scientific realism
- The New Induction
- The Problem of Unconceived Alternatives