HPS100H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Scientific Realism, Instrumentalism
15 Oct 2018
School
Course
Professor
Lecture 5: Scientific Progress
Questions:
1. Do our best scientific theories correctly describe the nature of the external world
2. Does science actually progress towards the truth?
Scientific Realism
• If you say yes that our theories actually describe the nature of the world that is out there → scientific
realism
• Our best scientific theories correctly describe the nature of the mind-independent world (the actual external
world)
o The opposite of this view is scientific anti-realism: we do not know whether our theories correctly
describe the nature of the mind-independent world (we are not in a position to know)
• If you are a scientific realist, then two concepts should be separated:
o Acceptance
o Use
Instrumentalism
• If you are a scientific anti-realism you can't really "accept" anything, so all of the science is use therefore
you can be renamed an instrumentalist
• Instrumentalist believe that all the sciences are just a useful tool for practical application
Scientific Realism: Selective Approach
• Scientific realism nowadays has two major ideologies:
1. Structural realism: theories about the nature of unobservable entities can be false, but the
knowledge of the relations between them is true
• e.g. theories about something may change such as gravity, but the equations representing the
relationships between things will not change
2. Entity realism: our knowledge about unobservable entities is true, although our theories concerning
relations between these entities can be false
• In this view once something is established it will remain in the mosaic forever, but the relations
between entities changed with our growing knowledge (e.g. there will always be molecules,
atoms, etc. when taking about chemistry)
• The main issue with the selective approach (i.e. all theories are false, but some aspects of our theories our
true) is that it contradicts the position of fallibility
Contra Structural Realism
• It is a historical fact that our knowledge about relations is changeable
• For example, Aristotelian physics vs Newtonian physics in explain Force, AP said F is proportional to
velocity while Newton said Force is proportional to acceleration - in this case the equation (i.e. the
relations) HAS changed
• Given the examples and history, structural realism is WRONG
Contra Entity Realism
• In the mid 18th century there was a phlogiston theory (process of combustion). Nowadays we explain
combustion theory a combination of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen → CO2 and H2O(g)
• Another example is Aristotelian elements (i.e. earth, air, water, fire) vs contemporary elements (i.e.
nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, lead)
• Both of these examples provide clear evidence that the list of entities that presumably populate the world
has changed through time. For this reason, entity realism is flawed
Progress In Science
• can we say our theories gradually improve our understanding of the world?
o This is scientific progress
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
If you are a scientific realist, then two concepts should be separated: acceptance, use. If you are a scientific anti-realism you can"t really accept anything, so all of the science is use therefore you can be renamed an instrumentalist. Instrumentalist believe that all the sciences are just a useful tool for practical application. In the mid 18th century there was a phlogiston theory (process of combustion). Progress in science can we say our theories gradually improve our understanding of the world: this is scientific progress, progress thesis: science progresses towards truth. No-miracles argument: empirical success of science: science has been empirically successful such that predictions of our theories become increasingly precise and accurate, suggests scientific progress. Pessimistic induction argument: pessimistic induction argument: we have never had a correct description of the world because ontologies in the past are now considered to be mistakes.
