The goal of this thesis is to explore the debate between Bas van Fraassens constructive empiricism and scientific realism. For this purpose I discuss the existence of observable and unobservable entities, the observation/theoretical dichotomy, inference to the best explanation, the no miracles argument, pessimistic induction, and epistemic risk. I strive to show that, contrary to the view of constructive empiricism, there is no clear demarcation line between observable and unobservable entities, and that not only naked eye observation but also the instrument-based observation plays an important role in acquiring knowledge. I agree with scientific realists that there is no highest point to the human power of observation; it is open-ended for further development. Moreover, naked eye observations are not themselves beyond doubt, as sometimes even naked eye observations deceive us. In that context, theoretical explanations help us to understand the real situation. As such, there is no reason to give more credit to naked eye observations than to instrument-mediated, theory-informed observations. <p>Scientific realists are confident in their knowledge of unobservables, and reject the epistemic significance of the observable/unobservable distinction. To justify their knowledge of unobservables, they use inferences to the best explanation. Such inferences play an important role in choosing the best theory amongst a group of theories. For their part, constructive empiricists use what is called the bad lot argument to refute these inferences. I try to show that such bad lot arguments fail to succeed at undermining inferences to the best explanation. Following scientific realists, I assert that nothing is miraculous in the domain of science, and that we can be assured of the approximate truth of successful scientific theories. It is true that many contemporary scientific theories contradict previously successful scientific theories, but that does not compel us to be pessimistic about such contemporary theories. Instead of pessimism, we can have an optimistic attitude about the progress of science. Considering the different arguments of constructive empiricism and scientific realism, this thesis gives more credit to scientific realism than to constructive empiricism.

The goal of this thesis is to explore the debate between Bas van Fraassens constructive empiricism and scientific realism. For this purpose I discuss the existence of observable and unobservable entities, the observation/theoretical dichotomy, inference to the best explanation, the no miracles argument, pessimistic induction, and epistemic risk. I strive to show that, contrary to the view of constructive empiricism, there is no clear demarcation line between observable and unobservable entities, and that not only naked eye observation but also the instrument-based observation plays an important role in acquiring knowledge. I agree with scientific realists that there is no highest point to the human power of observation; it is open-ended for further development. Moreover, naked eye observations are not themselves beyond doubt, as sometimes even naked eye observations deceive us. In that context, theoretical explanations help us to understand the real situation. As such, there is no reason to give more credit to naked eye observations than to instrument-mediated, theory-informed observations. <p>Scientific realists are confident in their knowledge of unobservables, and reject the epistemic significance of the observable/unobservable distinction. To justify their knowledge of unobservables, they use inferences to the best explanation. Such inferences play an important role in choosing the best theory amongst a group of theories. For their part, constructive empiricists use what is called the bad lot argument to refute these inferences. I try to show that such bad lot arguments fail to succeed at undermining inferences to the best explanation. Following scientific realists, I assert that nothing is miraculous in the domain of science, and that we can be assured of the approximate truth of successful scientific theories. It is true that many contemporary scientific theories contradict previously successful scientific theories, but that does not compel us to be pessimistic about such contemporary theories. Instead of pessimism, we can have an optimistic attitude about the progress of science. Considering the different arguments of constructive empiricism and scientific realism, this thesis gives more credit to scientific realism than to constructive empiricism.

<p>This thesis comprises an investigation into a very well known and perennial philosophical debate over the interpretive status of our most well confirmed scientific theories, known as "scientific realism." I do not defend scientific realism; rather, I set out to determine what scientific realism is in the first place. My contention is that the thesis is not a single, unified view, but rather a conglomeration of loosely associated propositions that are highly conceptually interwoven, but rarely distinguished. These consist of several different metaphysical, epistemological, and semantic doctrines, which I examine in great detail. I then argue that the indeterminate nature of scientific realism muddles the issue (if there is any) and renders debates fruitless. I attempt to define a thesis with relatively more precise content, which I call the "Core Realist Commitment," CRC. I argue that the CRC prioritizes epistemology - with the thesis that we can and do have (some) theoretical knowledge. I then demonstrate the relatively minimal commitments of the CRC, namely, a minimalist and very undemanding metaphysics, and almost none of the semantic theses that have been traditionally associated with realism. I conclude that the CRC is a step forward in thinking about the debate, not just for its relative precision but also because it is consistent with, and even tolerant of, a wide array of disagreement over concerns that are, I argue, external to the debate and need to be decided on independent grounds.</p> / Dissertation

Science benefits from substantial cognitive diversity because cognitive diversity promotes scientific progress toward greater accuracy. Without diversity of goals, beliefs, and methods, science would neither generate novel discoveries nor certify representations with its present effectiveness. The revolution in geosciences is a principal case study.The role of cognitive diversity in discovery is explored with attention to computational results. Discovery and certification are inseparable. Moreover, diverse scientific groups agree convergently, and their agreements manifest an explanatory defense akin to the explanatory defense of realism. Scientists accept representations as a matter of their instrumental success in individual scientific research. Because scientists are diverse, this standard of acceptance means that widespread acceptance involves widespread instrumental success. This success is best explained through the accuracy of topics of agreement.The pessimistic induction is addressed; it fails to undermine the explanatory defense because past scientific successes don't resemble present ones in their degree of instrumental success; to make this point, instrumental success of representations of caloric and of oxygen are compared.Cognitive diversity challenges the methodological uniformity of scientific practice. Science lacks uniform methods and aims, and it ought to. It is argued that there is no sound basis for thinking that science aims. Moreover, the growth of science itself is not the growth of knowledge. Scientific communities rather than individual scientists are the main certifiers of scientific results. Hence, since knowledge requires a certifying belief formation process but the process relevant to science is not realized individually, science does not progress toward knowledge. The epistemology of science is socialized, but remains broadly realist because, even without a method of inquiry, science develops accurate representations of unobservable nature.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Scientific realism and antirealism are two main views in the philosophy of science regarding the status of unobservable entities in science and whether we have good epistemic reasons to believe that our current successful scientific theories are (approximately) true. Briefly, the former claims that our scientific theories are (approximately) true and unobservable entities these scientific theories postulate exist. On the other hand, the latter claims that we do not have good epistemic reasons to believe that our scientific theories are (approximately) true and that unobservable entities our scientific theories postulate exist. The scientific realism has two primary tenets, one axiological (i.e., science should seek truth) and the other epistemological (namely, our current successful theories are (approximately) true). In this thesis, the issue has been examined from standpoint of the account of Peirce’s philosophy of science, more accurately based on his understanding of reality, truth and basic idealism. In the first chapter, I outline the main points of the debate from the perspectives of both sides. In the second chapter, I give reasons why the scientific realists’ argument is not convincing. In the third chapter, I attempt to draw an accurate picture of the account of Peirce’s views on the nature of scientific theories. In the last chapter, I make a case for scientific realism from the Peircean account of philosophy of science. I have claimed why the current debate cannot be settled without accepting a kind of Peirce's basic idealism and his understanding of reality. I think both scientific realists and antirealists accept a kind of naïve realism. This is the main reason why it is not possible to settle the debate from their standpoints. In order to overcome this issue, I attempt to develop a more sophisticated realism based on Peirce’s understanding of reality, truth and basic idealism.

Karl Popper's philosophy of science includes both falsificationism and realism. I explore the relationship between these two positions in his philosophy and find a strong tension between them. Drawing upon this tension in Popper's philosophy, I explore the general relationship between falsificationism and realism in an effort to determine whether or not the two positions can be successfully combined. Rather than criticizing falsificationism, I focus instead on the realist side of the tension and seek to resolve the tension through the introduction of an alternative form of scientific realism. I examine three alternatives in detail: Hilary Putnam's internal realism, Richard Boyd's realism, and Ian Hacking's entity realism. Internal realism is shown to be an unsatisfactory solution because of its failure to incorporate a notion of approximate truth. Boyd's version of realism is also shown to be unsatisfactory due to its ascription of absolute approximate truth to scientific theories. Hacking's entity realism, while consistent with falsificationism in many respects, is also shown to be problematic due to its apparent reliance upon induction. Finally, I propose a solution to the problem, which consists in the elaboration of an alternative version of scientific realism based primarily on a reinterpretation of Hacking's entity realism that stresses non-inferential knowledge of causes. I also argue that the reinterpreted form of Hacking's realism can be used to support Boyd's notion of a theoretical tradition, although one of entities and their causal properties rather than one of approximately true theories. / Master of Arts

This thesis examines the theory and practice of humanitarian intervention in the early post-Cold War era. Taking as its basis US policy towards Somalia, Rwanda and Haiti between 1992 and 1994, it develops a theory of humanitarian intervention based on constructivist and scientific realist principles. Using identity as the organising concept, the thesis examines the meta-theoretical precepts of constructivism and scientific realism, which are developed into a methodology for analysing questions of foreign policy. Incorporating critical insights from sequential path analysis, morphogenetic social analysis - the notion of a dynamic mutual constitution of structure and agency - and constructivist social theory, the case studies provide a useful new means of conceptualising humanitarian intervention as a foreign policy practice through an identity-driven analysis. The findings of the research shed much light on this practice and its future prospects. They also suggest new directions for a scientific realist/constructivist research agenda.

O Realismo Científico tem sido defendido quase exclusivamente através do Argumento do Milagre, segundo o qual ou assumimos que as teorias científicas são verdadeiras ou tornamos o sucesso da atividade científica em um fenômeno misterioso e inexplicável. No primeiro momento, as principais críticas ao argumento do milagre são reunidas em cinco objeções: (i) apresenta-se uma explicação alternativa para o sucesso da ciência que não assuma a verdade das teorias científicas e que compita com a explicação realista; (ii) defende-se que a hipótese realista não é uma explicação satisfatória para o sucesso da ciência, acusando-a de vacuidade explicativa, ou (iii) acusando-a de não satisfazer os critérios de rigor metodológico científico que ela mesmo impõe à justificação de teorias; (iv) afirma-se que o argumento seja uma petição de princípio, por pressupor uma regra de inferência abdutiva aceita apenas pela posição realista; (v) propõe-se que o argumento constitua uma falácia estatística ao ignorar um índice de fundo relevante. Ao replicar às objeções apresentadas, alguns autores propõem distinguir entre uma versão semântica do argumento, baseada no sucesso empírico obtido pelas teorias científicas enquanto entidades semânticas; e uma versão metodológica do argumento, baseada no sucesso pragmático dos cientistas em escolher teorias férteis e descobrir teorias bem sucedidas. Além disso, outros autores propõem uma segunda distinção entre uma versão geral do argumento, baseada estatisticamente no sucesso generalizado das teorias científicas, e uma versão retalhada do argumento, baseada na sua aplicação específica a uma teoria tomada individualmente. Após comparar as vantagens e desvantagens de cada interpretação, critica-se a relevância das distinções propostas e defende-se uma versão do argumento que sintetize suas diferentes interpretações de modo a solucionar as objeções inicialmente apresentadas. / Scientific Realism has been defended almost exclusively by the Non-Miracle Argument, which states that either it‘s assumed that scientific theories are true or the success of the scientific enterprise becomes a mysterious and unexplainable fact. At first, the main criticisms of the Non-Miracle Argument are gathered in five objections: (i) it‘s presented an alternative explanation to the success of science that competes with the realist explanation and does not assume the truth of the scientific theories; (ii) it‘s defended that the realist hypothesis is not a satisfactory explanation to the success of science, charging it of being an empty explanation, or (iii) charging its capacities to reach the scientific methodological rigorousness that itself imposes to the warrant of theories; (iv) it‘s affirmed that the argument is a petition principii, on account of presupposing an abductive rule of inference accepted only by the realist perspective; (v) it‘s proposed that the argument constitutes a statistical fallacy on account of neglecting a relevant base rate; When replying to the presented objections, some authors come up with the distinction between a semantic version of the argument, based on the empiric success reached by scientific theories considered as semantic entities, and a methodological version of the argument, based on the pragmatic success of scientists at choosing fruitful theories and discovering succeeded theories. Furthermore, other authors offer a second distinction between a general version of the argument, statistically based on the generalized success of science, and a retail version of the argument, based on its specific application to an individual theory. After comparing the advantages and drawbacks of each interpretation, the relevance of each distinction is reanalyzed and a new version of the argument by making a synthesis of its different interpretations is defended in a way to answer the five initial objections.

The thesis develops solutions to two main problems for mental realism. Mental realism is the theory that mental properties, events, and objects exist, with their own set of characters and causal powers. The first problem comes from the philosophy of science, where Psillos proposes a notion of scientific realism that contradicts mental realism, and consequently, if one is to be a scientific realist in the way Psillos recommends, one must reject mental realism. I propose adaptations to the conception of scientific realism to make it compatible with mental realism. In the process, the thesis defends computational cognitive science from a compelling argument Searle can be seen to endorse but has not put forth in an organized logical manner. A new conception of scientific realism emerges out of this inquiry, integrating the mental into the rest of nature. The second problem for mental realism arises out of non-reductive physicalism- the view that higher-level properties, and in particular mental properties, are irreducible, physically realized, and that physical properties are sufficient non-overdetermining causes of any effect. Kim’s Problem of Causal Exclusion aims to show that the mental, if unreduced, does no causal work. Consequently, given that we should not believe in the existence of properties that do not participate in causation, we would be forced to drop mental realism. A solution is needed. The thesis examines various positions relevant to the debate. Several doctrines of physicalism are explored, rejected, and one is proposed; the thesis shows the way in which Kim’s reductionist position has been constantly inconsistent throughout the years of debate; the thesis argues that trope theory does not compete with a universalist conception of properties to provide a solution; and shows weakness in the Macdonald’s non-reductive monist position and Pereboom’s constitutional coincidence account of mental causation. The thesis suggests that either the premises of Kim’s argument are consistent, and consequently his reductio is logically invalid, or at least one of the premises is false, and therefore the argument is not sound. Consequently, the Problem of Causal Exclusion that Kim claims emerges out of non-reductive physicalism does not force us to reject mental realism. Mental realism lives on.

O Realismo Científico tem sido defendido quase exclusivamente através do Argumento do Milagre, segundo o qual ou assumimos que as teorias científicas são verdadeiras ou tornamos o sucesso da atividade científica em um fenômeno misterioso e inexplicável. No primeiro momento, as principais críticas ao argumento do milagre são reunidas em cinco objeções: (i) apresenta-se uma explicação alternativa para o sucesso da ciência que não assuma a verdade das teorias científicas e que compita com a explicação realista; (ii) defende-se que a hipótese realista não é uma explicação satisfatória para o sucesso da ciência, acusando-a de vacuidade explicativa, ou (iii) acusando-a de não satisfazer os critérios de rigor metodológico científico que ela mesmo impõe à justificação de teorias; (iv) afirma-se que o argumento seja uma petição de princípio, por pressupor uma regra de inferência abdutiva aceita apenas pela posição realista; (v) propõe-se que o argumento constitua uma falácia estatística ao ignorar um índice de fundo relevante. Ao replicar às objeções apresentadas, alguns autores propõem distinguir entre uma versão semântica do argumento, baseada no sucesso empírico obtido pelas teorias científicas enquanto entidades semânticas; e uma versão metodológica do argumento, baseada no sucesso pragmático dos cientistas em escolher teorias férteis e descobrir teorias bem sucedidas. Além disso, outros autores propõem uma segunda distinção entre uma versão geral do argumento, baseada estatisticamente no sucesso generalizado das teorias científicas, e uma versão retalhada do argumento, baseada na sua aplicação específica a uma teoria tomada individualmente. Após comparar as vantagens e desvantagens de cada interpretação, critica-se a relevância das distinções propostas e defende-se uma versão do argumento que sintetize suas diferentes interpretações de modo a solucionar as objeções inicialmente apresentadas. / Scientific Realism has been defended almost exclusively by the Non-Miracle Argument, which states that either it‘s assumed that scientific theories are true or the success of the scientific enterprise becomes a mysterious and unexplainable fact. At first, the main criticisms of the Non-Miracle Argument are gathered in five objections: (i) it‘s presented an alternative explanation to the success of science that competes with the realist explanation and does not assume the truth of the scientific theories; (ii) it‘s defended that the realist hypothesis is not a satisfactory explanation to the success of science, charging it of being an empty explanation, or (iii) charging its capacities to reach the scientific methodological rigorousness that itself imposes to the warrant of theories; (iv) it‘s affirmed that the argument is a petition principii, on account of presupposing an abductive rule of inference accepted only by the realist perspective; (v) it‘s proposed that the argument constitutes a statistical fallacy on account of neglecting a relevant base rate; When replying to the presented objections, some authors come up with the distinction between a semantic version of the argument, based on the empiric success reached by scientific theories considered as semantic entities, and a methodological version of the argument, based on the pragmatic success of scientists at choosing fruitful theories and discovering succeeded theories. Furthermore, other authors offer a second distinction between a general version of the argument, statistically based on the generalized success of science, and a retail version of the argument, based on its specific application to an individual theory. After comparing the advantages and drawbacks of each interpretation, the relevance of each distinction is reanalyzed and a new version of the argument by making a synthesis of its different interpretations is defended in a way to answer the five initial objections.