5.2 Scientific realism vs. anti-realism debate
7 min read•july 30, 2024
The vs. debate is a key philosophical discussion about the nature of scientific theories. It asks whether our best scientific theories accurately describe reality or are just useful tools for making predictions.
This debate connects to the broader topic of laws of nature by questioning whether scientific laws truly capture fundamental aspects of the universe or are simply human constructs. It challenges our understanding of what scientific knowledge really represents.
Scientific Realism vs Anti-realism
Defining Scientific Realism
Top images from around the web for Defining Scientific Realism
Scientific Realism and Further Underdetermination Challenges | Global Philosophy View original
Is this image relevant?
Scientific Progress – Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science View original
Is this image relevant?
Scientific Progress – Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science View original
Is this image relevant?
Scientific Realism and Further Underdetermination Challenges | Global Philosophy View original
Is this image relevant?
Scientific Progress – Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Defining Scientific Realism
Scientific Realism and Further Underdetermination Challenges | Global Philosophy View original
Is this image relevant?
Scientific Progress – Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science View original
Is this image relevant?
Scientific Progress – Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science View original
Is this image relevant?
Scientific Realism and Further Underdetermination Challenges | Global Philosophy View original
Is this image relevant?
Scientific Progress – Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Scientific realism is the view that the entities, states and processes described by scientific theories really do exist
- Realists hold that the universe exists independent of our ability to observe it and that science can provide true, objective knowledge about the world
- Realism interprets scientific theories as providing true descriptions of an independent reality (atomic theory, evolutionary theory, theory of relativity)
Defining Scientific Anti-realism
- Anti-realism is the view that scientific theories do not provide a literally true account of the world
- Instrumentalism holds that scientific theories are merely useful tools or instruments for predicting observable phenomena, not true descriptions of reality
- asserts that science aims to give theories that are empirically adequate, agreeing with observable phenomena, but does not commit to unobservable aspects of theories being true
- Anti-realism sees scientific theories as empirically adequate tools that do not necessarily correspond to an objective reality
Key Differences and Central Debate
- The key difference is that realism interprets scientific theories as providing true descriptions of an independent reality, while anti-realism sees them as empirically adequate tools that do not necessarily correspond to an objective reality
- The debate centers on whether theoretical entities like electrons, fields, forces, genes really exist (realism) or are just useful fictions that help us systematize and predict empirical results (anti-realism)
- Realists believe science uncovers objective truths about a mind-independent world (structure of the atom, laws of motion), while anti-realists see science as an instrument for organizing experience and making predictions without necessarily describing the ultimate nature of reality
Arguments for Scientific Realism and Anti-realism
Arguments for Scientific Realism
- The "no miracles" argument for realism contends that the remarkable success of science in making novel predictions and developing technologies would be an inexplicable miracle if scientific theories were not at least approximately true
- Realists argue the success of science is best explained by theories truly describing reality (GPS technology relies on both quantum mechanics and general relativity being correct)
- Evolutionary, reliabilist arguments hold that our sensory and cognitive capacities have developed to track objective reality, and that the empirical success of theories confirms that they do latch onto real structures of the world
- Realists point to the increasing convergence and unity of scientific theories across different domains as evidence they are approximating an underlying reality (atomic theory confirmed by multiple independent lines of evidence)
Arguments for Scientific Anti-realism
- The "" argument for anti-realism points out that many past theories thought to be true were later rejected and replaced, so we should not consider even our best current theories as true (Ptolemaic astronomy, caloric theory of heat, ether theory of light)
- The history of science's mutability and constant theory change supports anti-realism - theories are provisional tools, not ultimate
- Underdetermination arguments contend that the empirical evidence alone is insufficient to determine which theory is true, since multiple incompatible theories can always account for the same evidence (Ptolemaic vs. Copernican astronomy, Newtonian vs. Einsteinian gravity)
- Theory choice is underdetermined by data - factors beyond evidence shape which theory is accepted
- Anti-realists highlight the constructed, theory-laden, and fallible nature of observation as problematic for the realist view of science providing direct access to facts about an independent reality (perceptual illusions, theoretical biases in interpreting data)
- All observation is shaped by underlying concepts and assumptions, not a neutral window onto an observer-independent world
Implications of Realism vs Anti-realism
Implications of Realism for Science
- Realism provides a strong rationale and motivation for scientific research, holding that science can discover objective truths about the world and continually progress in its understanding of an independent reality
- Adopting realism encourages working scientists to pursue research into the unobservable entities and processes postulated by theories (subatomic particles, evolutionary lineages, cognitive mechanisms)
- Realism underwrites scientific practice and the pursuit of theoretical unification and mechanistic explanation - science aims to correctly describe the actual structure and dynamics of the world beyond merely saving the observable phenomena
Implications of Anti-realism for Science
- Anti-realism can account for the instrumental success of science in prediction, explanation and application without requiring belief in the literal truth of theories
- Anti-realism may better explain the evolving nature of science with theories judged empirically adequate rather than unqualifiedly true - avoids implausible realist implication that current theories are the final truth
- Anti-realism may favor a narrower focus on empirical adequacy of theories in observable predictions rather than speculative theorizing about unobservables (behaviorism in psychology, phenomenological models in physics)
- Anti-realism potentially undercuts the ultimate epistemic aims and authority of science as an arbiter of objective truth beyond instrumental utility - science is one useful tool, not a royal road to reality
Challenges for Realism and Anti-realism
- Realism is challenged to explain the historical track record of theory change in science with past theories held as true (Newtonian mechanics) being overturned and replaced by incompatible later theories (relativistic physics)
- Scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts seem to undermine realism - theories are not straightforward descriptions of reality
- Anti-realism must still account for the increasingly detailed and wide-ranging empirical success of theories in supporting novel predictions and producing reliable technologies (laser theory, plate tectonics, molecular genetics)
- If theories do not connect to reality, their practical success seems to lack explanation - success of science becomes a miracle on anti-realism
Strengths and Weaknesses of Realism and Anti-realism
Strengths of Scientific Realism
- Realism provides a more common-sense, intuitively appealing explanation for the success of science that seems to better motivate and direct scientific research
- Realism gains support from evolutionary reliabilist arguments that our senses and science have developed to track objective reality, and from the increasing success of theories in making novel predictions and guiding applications (Mendeleev's periodic table, Einstein's prediction of gravitational lensing)
- Realism underwrites the pursuit of scientific progress and theoretical unification - science can discover objective truths and continually improve our grasp on reality
Weaknesses of Scientific Realism
- Realism struggles to handle the history of theory change and the fact that past theories held as true were later overturned (phlogiston chemistry, Maxwellian ether, Freudian psychoanalysis)
- The metaphysical and epistemological commitments of realism - that current theories are literally true and that science achieves privileged epistemic access to observer-independent reality - face challenges and may go beyond what actual scientific practice requires
- Realism's claims that theories directly correspond to the structure of the world and that we can gain knowledge of unobservables are disputed by anti-realists as underdetermined by the empirical evidence
Strengths of Scientific Anti-realism
- Anti-realism can explain the empirical success of theories without requiring belief in the truth of their unobservable aspects, and may better account for the tentative, evolving nature of science
- Anti-realist approaches like constructive empiricism can maintain the empirical integrity and instrumental reliability of science while withholding judgment on the truth of theoretical entities and structures
- Anti-realism avoids the difficulties realism faces with theory change and scientific revolutions - theories are seen as provisional tools rather than final truth
Weaknesses of Scientific Anti-realism
- Anti-realism seems to make the success of science a miracle and undercuts its role as an ultimate arbiter of truth - if theories do not latch onto reality, their practical achievements are inexplicable
- Anti-realism may not offer the most compelling explanation for the detailed success of theories in making novel predictions and supporting applications - if theories are mere tools, their uncanny fit with new empirical findings is puzzling
- Anti-realism's deflationary view of the aims of science and the epistemic status of theories may not do justice to actual scientific practice and the realist intuitions of working scientists
Ongoing Challenges in the Realism vs Anti-realism Debate
- Ultimately, both realist and anti-realist approaches continue to grapple with accounting for the complex, dynamic practices of actual science
- Each perspective offers important insights, but neither may fully capture the nuances of how science develops over time - the interplay of theoretical commitments, empirical evidence, instrumental utility, and social factors
- The debate remains active and unresolved - new considerations and case studies from the history of science continue to inform and complicate the realism vs anti-realism dialectic
- More sophisticated views like structural realism, critical realism, and perspectival realism attempt to incorporate the strengths of both positions while avoiding their weaknesses, portraying science as achieving partial or approximate truth
Key Terms to Review (18)
Anti-realism: Anti-realism is a philosophical position that argues against the existence of an objective reality independent of human thought, emphasizing that our understanding of the world is shaped by social, cultural, and linguistic contexts. This perspective suggests that scientific theories do not necessarily reflect an underlying reality but are instead useful instruments for organizing our experiences and predictions about the world.
Bas van Fraassen: Bas van Fraassen is a prominent philosopher of science known for his contributions to the debate on scientific realism and anti-realism, particularly through his development of constructive empiricism. His views emphasize that scientific theories should be evaluated based on their empirical adequacy rather than the truth of the unobservable entities they posit, making a significant impact on how theories are understood within the semantic view of theories.
Constructive empiricism: Constructive empiricism is a philosophical position regarding the aim of scientific theories, suggesting that the goal is not to provide a true description of the world, but to develop theories that are empirically adequate, meaning they accurately predict observable phenomena. This perspective emphasizes that scientific theories should be judged based on their usefulness in explaining and predicting experiences rather than their truth in representing an unobservable reality.
Epistemic Access Problem: The epistemic access problem refers to the challenge of knowing and understanding the nature of unobservable entities or processes that are posited by scientific theories. This issue arises particularly in the debate between scientific realism, which holds that scientific theories accurately describe reality, and anti-realism, which argues that theories are simply useful instruments for predicting observable phenomena. The problem questions how we can justify our belief in the existence of these unobservable entities if our only access to them is through indirect evidence or theoretical constructs.
Hilary Putnam: Hilary Putnam was an influential American philosopher known for his contributions to philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science. His work is particularly significant in the debate between scientific realism and anti-realism, where he introduced key ideas that challenged traditional views about the nature of scientific theories and their relation to reality.
Logical Positivism: Logical positivism is a philosophical movement that emerged in the early 20th century, emphasizing the verification principle, which holds that a statement is meaningful only if it can be empirically verified or is analytically true. This view connects closely with the scientific method, aiming to differentiate meaningful scientific statements from those that are metaphysical or nonsensical.
Metaphysical realism: Metaphysical realism is the philosophical view that a reality exists independently of our perceptions, beliefs, or linguistic frameworks. It posits that the world has an objective structure, which includes entities and their properties that exist whether or not we observe them or have knowledge of them. This view is central to the scientific realism versus anti-realism debate, as it underpins the belief that scientific theories aim to describe this objective reality.
No Miracles Argument: The no miracles argument is a philosophical reasoning that supports scientific realism by asserting that the success of scientific theories would be inexplicable if they were not at least approximately true. This argument connects the success of science to the belief that our best scientific theories accurately describe unobservable entities, suggesting that if these theories were false, the remarkable predictive power and effectiveness of science would be a miraculous coincidence.
Ontology: Ontology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of being, existence, and reality. It explores questions about what entities exist and how they can be categorized and related to one another. In the context of scientific realism versus anti-realism, ontology plays a crucial role in determining what kind of entities scientists believe exist and whether those entities have an independent existence outside our perceptions and theories.
Pessimistic Meta-Induction: Pessimistic meta-induction is an argument against scientific realism, suggesting that because many scientific theories in history have been proven false, our current theories are likely to be false as well. This challenges the idea that we can have true knowledge of unobservable entities or processes posited by these theories, proposing instead a skeptical view of the reliability of science in revealing the nature of reality.
Problem of Unconceived Alternatives: The problem of unconceived alternatives refers to the idea that there may be plausible scientific theories or explanations that we have not yet conceived. This concept challenges the notion of scientific realism, which posits that our best scientific theories are true or approximately true representations of the world. The issue arises when considering that if there are potentially many unconsidered theories, it raises doubts about our confidence in the truth of the theories we currently accept.
Scientific Realism: Scientific realism is the philosophical position that scientific theories aim to describe the world accurately, asserting that unobservable entities posited by these theories, such as electrons or black holes, truly exist. This perspective emphasizes that successful scientific explanations and predictions reflect an objective reality, connecting deeply with various aspects of scientific inquiry and understanding.
Scientific skepticism: Scientific skepticism is an approach that emphasizes questioning the validity of claims and evidence, insisting that beliefs should be based on empirical evidence and logical reasoning. This perspective encourages a critical examination of scientific theories and findings, aiming to distinguish between scientifically sound ideas and those lacking empirical support. It serves as a crucial tool in evaluating the scientific realism versus anti-realism debate and in assessing the legitimacy of pseudoscience and fringe science.
Sophisticated empiricism: Sophisticated empiricism is a philosophical viewpoint that combines elements of empirical observation with theoretical frameworks to understand scientific knowledge. It asserts that while scientific theories must be grounded in empirical data, they also require a conceptual understanding that transcends mere observation, enabling the development of explanations that account for the complexity of phenomena.
Theoretical Terms: Theoretical terms are terms used in scientific theories that refer to entities or processes that cannot be directly observed or measured but are essential for explaining phenomena. These terms play a crucial role in bridging the gap between observable phenomena and the underlying theories, allowing scientists to make predictions and create models of reality. The use of theoretical terms raises important questions about the nature of scientific knowledge and its relation to observable data.
Theory-ladenness: Theory-ladenness refers to the idea that observations and interpretations in science are influenced by the theoretical frameworks and beliefs held by scientists. This concept emphasizes that what we see and how we understand phenomena are not purely objective, but are shaped by the theories we subscribe to, leading to potential biases in scientific inquiry.
Truth: Truth is often defined as the property of statements or beliefs that accurately reflect reality or correspond to facts. In philosophical discussions, it can be related to concepts like belief, justification, and knowledge, especially within the frameworks of scientific realism and anti-realism, where the nature of truth in science is critically examined.
Underdetermination of Theories: The underdetermination of theories is the idea that evidence available to us may be insufficient to determine which of two or more competing theories is the true explanation of a phenomenon. This concept raises important questions about the relationship between evidence, theory choice, and the nature of scientific inquiry, especially in debates surrounding the truth of scientific theories and their ontological commitments.