Scientific anti-realism - Revision history

WikiSysop at 08:14, 27 February 2023

2023-02-27T08:14:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:14, 26 February 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Anti-realists''' argue that the empirical success of our best scientific theories does not warrant belief in the approximate truth (or the existence of the theoretical posits) of our best scientific theories because the history of science is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The first argument is commonly known as the “miracle argument” or the “no miracles argument” for scientific realism, whereas the second argument is commonly known as the “pessimistic induction” or the “pessimistic meta-induction.” These two arguments have largely dominated the scientific realism/antirealism debate in [[philosophy of science. However, both realists and antirealists have other arguments in their arsenal. Many of those arguments appeal to the dismal historical record of science.		'''Anti-realists''' argue that the empirical success of our best scientific theories does not warrant belief in the approximate truth (or the existence of the theoretical posits) of our best scientific theories because the history of science is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The first argument is commonly known as the “miracle argument” or the “no miracles argument” for scientific realism, whereas the second argument is commonly known as the “pessimistic induction” or the “pessimistic meta-induction.” These two arguments have largely dominated the scientific [[realism]]/antirealism debate in [[philosophy of science]]. However, both realists and antirealists have other arguments in their arsenal. Many of those arguments appeal to the dismal historical record of science.

	[[Category:Definitions]]		[[Category:Definitions]]
	[[Category:Philosophy]]		[[Category:Philosophy]]
	[[Category:Science]]		[[Category:Science]]

WikiSysop at 08:13, 27 February 2023

2023-02-27T08:13:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:13, 26 February 2023
Line 3:		Line 3:
	[[Category:Definitions]]		[[Category:Definitions]]
	[[Category:Philosophy]]		[[Category:Philosophy]]
			[[Category:Science]]

Rightof Genghiskhan at 05:58, 27 February 2023

2023-02-27T05:58:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 26 February 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Anti-realists''' argue that the empirical success of our best scientific theories does not warrant belief in the approximate truth (or the existence of the theoretical posits) of our best scientific theories because the history of ~~Science [[Category:Science]]~~ is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The first argument is commonly known as the “miracle argument” or the “no miracles argument” for scientific realism, whereas the second argument is commonly known as the “pessimistic induction” or the “pessimistic meta-induction.” These two arguments have largely dominated the scientific realism/antirealism debate in [[philosophy of ~~Science [[Category:Science]]~~. However, both realists and antirealists have other arguments in their arsenal. Many of those arguments appeal to the dismal historical record of ~~Science [[Category:Science]]~~.		'''Anti-realists''' argue that the empirical success of our best scientific theories does not warrant belief in the approximate truth (or the existence of the theoretical posits) of our best scientific theories because the history of science is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The first argument is commonly known as the “miracle argument” or the “no miracles argument” for scientific realism, whereas the second argument is commonly known as the “pessimistic induction” or the “pessimistic meta-induction.” These two arguments have largely dominated the scientific realism/antirealism debate in [[philosophy of science. However, both realists and antirealists have other arguments in their arsenal. Many of those arguments appeal to the dismal historical record of science.

	[[Category:Definitions]]		[[Category:Definitions]]
	[[Category:Philosophy]]		[[Category:Philosophy]]

WikiSysop: Text replacement - "]]]]" to "]]"

2023-02-14T21:18:01Z

Text replacement - "]]]]" to "]]"

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:18, 14 February 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Anti-realists''' argue that the empirical success of our best scientific theories does not warrant belief in the approximate truth (or the existence of the theoretical posits) of our best scientific theories because the history of Science [[Category:Science]] is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The first argument is commonly known as the “miracle argument” or the “no miracles argument” for scientific realism, whereas the second argument is commonly known as the “pessimistic induction” or the “pessimistic meta-induction.” These two arguments have largely dominated the scientific realism/antirealism debate in [[philosophy of Science [[Category:Science]]]]. However, both realists and antirealists have other arguments in their arsenal. Many of those arguments appeal to the dismal historical record of Science [[Category:Science]].		'''Anti-realists''' argue that the empirical success of our best scientific theories does not warrant belief in the approximate truth (or the existence of the theoretical posits) of our best scientific theories because the history of Science [[Category:Science]] is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The first argument is commonly known as the “miracle argument” or the “no miracles argument” for scientific realism, whereas the second argument is commonly known as the “pessimistic induction” or the “pessimistic meta-induction.” These two arguments have largely dominated the scientific realism/antirealism debate in [[philosophy of Science [[Category:Science]]. However, both realists and antirealists have other arguments in their arsenal. Many of those arguments appeal to the dismal historical record of Science [[Category:Science]].

	[[Category:Definitions]]		[[Category:Definitions]]
	[[Category:Philosophy]]		[[Category:Philosophy]]

Bacchus: Text replacement - "science" to "Science Category:Science"

2023-02-13T23:06:11Z

Text replacement - "science" to "Science Category:Science"

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:06, 13 February 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Anti-realists''' argue that the empirical success of our best scientific theories does not warrant belief in the approximate truth (or the existence of the theoretical posits) of our best scientific theories because the history of ~~science~~ is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The first argument is commonly known as the “miracle argument” or the “no miracles argument” for scientific realism, whereas the second argument is commonly known as the “pessimistic induction” or the “pessimistic meta-induction.” These two arguments have largely dominated the scientific realism/antirealism debate in [[philosophy of ~~science~~]]. However, both realists and antirealists have other arguments in their arsenal. Many of those arguments appeal to the dismal historical record of ~~science~~.		'''Anti-realists''' argue that the empirical success of our best scientific theories does not warrant belief in the approximate truth (or the existence of the theoretical posits) of our best scientific theories because the history of Science [[Category:Science]] is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The first argument is commonly known as the “miracle argument” or the “no miracles argument” for scientific realism, whereas the second argument is commonly known as the “pessimistic induction” or the “pessimistic meta-induction.” These two arguments have largely dominated the scientific realism/antirealism debate in [[philosophy of Science [[Category:Science]]]]. However, both realists and antirealists have other arguments in their arsenal. Many of those arguments appeal to the dismal historical record of Science [[Category:Science]].

	[[Category:Definitions]]		[[Category:Definitions]]
	[[Category:Philosophy]]		[[Category:Philosophy]]

Bacchus: Created page with "'''Anti-realists''' argue that the empirical success of our best scientific theories does not warrant belief in the approximate truth (or the existence of the theoretical posits) of our best scientific theories because the history of science is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The first argument is commonly known as the “miracle argument” or the “no miracles argument” for scientific realism, whereas the second argument..."

2023-01-16T02:59:13Z

Created page with "'''Anti-realists''' argue that the empirical success of our best scientific theories does not warrant belief in the approximate truth (or the existence of the theoretical posits) of our best scientific theories because the history of science is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The first argument is commonly known as the “miracle argument” or the “no miracles argument” for scientific realism, whereas the second argument..."

New page

'''Anti-realists''' argue that the empirical success of our best scientific theories does not warrant belief in the approximate truth (or the existence of the theoretical posits) of our best scientific theories because the history of science is a graveyard of theories that were once successful but were later discarded. The first argument is commonly known as the “miracle argument” or the “no miracles argument” for scientific realism, whereas the second argument is commonly known as the “pessimistic induction” or the “pessimistic meta-induction.” These two arguments have largely dominated the scientific realism/antirealism debate in [[philosophy of science]]. However, both realists and antirealists have other arguments in their arsenal. Many of those arguments appeal to the dismal historical record of science.

[[Category:Definitions]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]