Realism and Anti-Realism about Science

A Pyrrhonian Stance

in International Journal for the Study of Skepticism
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Pyrrhonists provide a way of investigating the world in which conflicting views about a given topic are critically compared, assessed, and juxtaposed. Since Pyrrhonists are ultimately unable to decide between these views, they end up suspending judgment about the issues under examination. In this paper, I consider the question of whether Pyrrhonists can be realists or anti-realists about science, focusing, in particular, on contemporary philosophical discussions about it. Although prima facie the answer seems to be negative, I argue that if realism and anti-realism are understood as philosophical stances rather than particular doctrines—that is, if they are conceptualized in terms of a mode of engagement, a style of reasoning, and some propositional attitudes—the apparent tension between Pyrrhonism, realism, and anti-realism vanishes. The result is a first step in the direction of bringing Pyrrhonism to bear on contemporary debates in the philosophy of science.

Realism and Anti-Realism about Science

A Pyrrhonian Stance

in International Journal for the Study of Skepticism

Sections

References

AlstonW. (1988). “The Deontological Conception of Epistemic JustificationPhilosophical Perspectives 2: 257299.

BettR. (2000). Pyrrho his Antecedents and his Legacy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

BoydR. (1990). “Realism, Approximate Truth and Philosophical Method.” In SavageC.W. (ed.) Scientific Theories355391. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. 14. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

BuenoO. (2013). “Nominalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics.” In ZaltaE. N. (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 edition). URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/nominalism-mathematics/.

BurnyeatM. and FredeM. (eds.). (1997). The Original Sceptics: A Controversy. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

ChakravarttyA. (2007). A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ChudnoffE. (2013). Intuition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

FineA. (1984). “The Natural Ontological Attitude.” In LeplinJ. (ed.) Scientific Realism83107. Berkeley: University of California Press.

FogelinR. (1994) Pyrrhonian Reflections on Knowledge and Justification. New York: Oxford University Press.

FrenchS. (2006). “Structure as a Weapon of the RealistProceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106: 167185.

FrenchS. and LadymanJ. (2003). “Remodelling Structural Realism: Quantum Physics and the Metaphysics of StructureSynthese 136: 3156.

——. (2003). “The Dissolution of Objects: Between Platonism and PhenomenalismSynthese 136: 7377.

GödelK. (1964). “What is Cantor’s Continuum Problem?” In BenacerrafP. and PutnamH. (eds.) Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings470485. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

KuhnT. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

LadymanJ. (1998). “What is Structural Realism?Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29: 409424.

LammenrantaM. (2008). “The Pyrrhonian Problematic.” In GrecoJ. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism933. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LaudanL. (1984). Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press.

MaddyP. (1990). Realism in Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

NagelE. (1950). “Science and Semantic RealismPhilosophy of Science 17: 17481.

ParsonsC. (2008). Mathematical Thought and its Objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Porchat PereiraO. (2007). Rumo ao Ceticismo. São Paulo: unesp.

PsillosS. (1999). Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.

PutnamH. (1979). Mathematics Matter and Method. Philosophical Papers volume 1. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

RouseJ. (2003). “Kuhn’s Philosophy of Scientific Practice.” In NicklesT. (ed.) Thomas Kuhn101121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

RowbottomD. and BuenoO.. (2011). “How to Change It: Modes of Engagement, Rationality, and Stance VoluntarismSynthese 178: 717.

EmpiricusSextus. (2000). Outlines of Scepticism. Trans. J. Annas and J. Barnes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van FraassenB.C. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

——. (1989). Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

——. (1991). Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

——. (2002). The Empirical Stance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

——. (2008). Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

WorrallJ. (1989). “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?” Dialectica 43: 99124.

5

 See Alston (1988) for an examination of different kinds of control of belief (and other propositional attitudes).

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 31 31 18
Full Text Views 8 8 8
PDF Downloads 4 4 4
EPUB Downloads 2 2 2