The Anti-Realist Explanation for Science's Success: Semantics, Method and Attitude

• Published in: KRITERION – Journal of Philosophy 2020-12, Vol.34 (4), p.15-44
• Main Author: Silva, Bruno Malavolta e
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: constructive empiricism; no-miracles argument; scientific realism; van Fraassen
• ISSN: 1019-8288; 2750-977X
• DOI: 10.1515/krt-2020-340405

Antirealist explanations for the success of science have been widely discussed up to today and have received several formulations. This makes it rather complex to assess them all. The objective of this paper is to help understand and assess the proposal of an anti-realist explanation for science's success. I show the core assumptions contained in the several anti- realist explanations, how they relate to each other, and which background assumptions are required in order to warrant each position. I argue that, since the many anti-realist explanations are only plausible when maintained conjointly, there is essentially only one anti-realist account to science's success: scientists find successful (and even fertile) theories because they use methods of theory-selection and theory-construction that preserve only successful theories; the fact that these theories prove themselves successful will not be mysterious if it is conjointly assumed that false theories are often empirically successful. This explanation relies on a semantic and a methodological view concerning the probabilistic relation between success and truth, and also on an epistemic stance regarding the limits of explanatory reasoning. The crucial divergence between realist and antirealist accounts of science's success lies in how probable they assess the possibility of a theory to be false and empirically successful. Since the stale-mate between realist and antirealist explanations results from a prior disagreement about the probabilistic connection between success and truth (or the underdetermination thesis), the challenge raised by the antirealist explanation to realism becomes equivalent to the traditional charge that the no-miracles argument is circular.