Selective Scientific Realism: Representation, Objectivity and Truth

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Varieties of Scientific Realism
  • 711 Accesses

Abstract

In this paper I advocate a version of selective epistemological realism. I begin with analyzing the conditions in which a scientific model successfully and correctly represents an identified target. I stress that the realistic import of models rests on the truth of some predicative statements. I then examine the notions of objectivity and truth in order to be able to assess the reasons to believe in the existence of some unobserved objects posited by our best scientific theories and in the truth of some assertions about the properties that these objects possess. I distinguish between the properties that are observable in principle by means of instruments which enhance our perceptive capacities (the OP properties) and the properties that are beyond any possible observation by us, namely the properties which are purely theoretical (the PT properties), such as charm and strangeness in elementary particle physics. The OP properties are identical or similar to the observed properties of ordinary perceived things, such as velocity, volume and, admittedly more controversially, charge and mass. I propose four stringent requirements for rationally believing that an unobserved object posited by a theory possesses a specific property. Firstly, this property must be an OP property. Secondly, it must be measurable. Thirdly, it must play a causal role in producing the observed data. Fourthly, distinct independent methods for measuring this property must deliver concordant results. I then show that the generality and acceptability of these four criteria is grounded on a parallelism with the reasons we adduce for (rightly) believing in the existence of ordinary observable things which we don’t immediately perceive such as mice, in some circumstances. However, an agnostic attitude is to be recommended with respect to the possession of PT properties by an object posited by an—even successful—scientific theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more details on this see van Fraassen (2008) and Ghins (2010, 2016b).

  2. 2.

    Mental ideas, whatever their status, exist as mental entities and can be the target of scientific investigation.

  3. 3.

    More on this in Ghins (2016b).

  4. 4.

    See van Fraassen (2008, 14) and Ghins (2010, 525) for a discussion of this particular example.

  5. 5.

    A homomorphism is a function which preserves the form or the structure but is not necessarily bijective. As a particular case of homomorphism, an isomorphism is a one-one correspondence between two sets. See Suppes (2002, 56).

  6. 6.

    Zalta’s abstract objects are individuals which both encode and exemplify properties. They aren’t Agazzi’s abstract objects. For Zalta, when a concrete object has all the properties encoded by the abstract object, it is a physical “correlate” of the abstract object (See Ghins 2016a).

  7. 7.

    Although the targets of our representations are things, we represent only some aspects of them, that is, structures or objects (see Ghins 2010).

  8. 8.

    The word «phenomenon» inevitably suggests something that appears to me or us, whereas the word “thing” immediately makes us think of something in the external world.

  9. 9.

    See Agazzi (2014, 194).

  10. 10.

    See also Ghins (2010, 527).

  11. 11.

    For a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses on the NMA, see for example Alai (2012).

  12. 12.

    The OP properties attributed to molecules certainly are theoretical, since they belong to objects posited by a theory. This is why I use the adjective “purely” to refer to theoretical properties which are beyond any possibility of indirect observation.

  13. 13.

    Mario Alai (2010, 672) mentions a method of measurement used by Perrin to determine the upper limit for the size of molecules, which relies solely on an inductive inference.

  14. 14.

    Admittedly, an OP property often plays a causal role together with some PT properties. Each requirement is necessary but none of them is sufficient in isolation.

  15. 15.

    See Maxwell (1962, 7).

  16. 16.

    See Nola (2008).

  17. 17.

    A causal law is a mathematical law containing a time derivative which refers to the effect, whereas the other terms refer to the cause(s) . (Blondeau and Ghins 2012).

References

  • Agazzi, E. (2014), Scientific objectivity and its contexts. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alai, M. (2010), “van Fraassen, Observability and Belief”, in D’Agostino, Giorello, Laudisa, Pievani & Sinigaglia (eds.) New Essays in Logic and Philosophy of Science, 663–675. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alai, M. (2012), “Levin and Ghins on the No-Miracle Argument and Naturalism”. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2, 85–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blondeau, J. and Ghins, M. (2012), “Is There an Intrinsic Criterion for Causal Law like Statements?” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 26, 381–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Costa, N. and French, S. (2003), Science and Partial Truth. A Unitary Approach to Models and Scientific Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghins, M. (1992), «Scientific Realism and Invariance». Proceedings of the Third SOFIA Conference on Epistemology. Campinas. July 30–August 1, 1990. Philosophical Issues (Vol. 2: Rationality in Epistemology). 249–62. California: Ridgeview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghins, M. (2002), «Putnam’s No-Miracle Argument: a Critique» in Clarke & Lyons (eds.) Recent Themes in the Philosophy of Science: Scientific Realism and Commonsense. Australasian Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Vol. 17, 121–138. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghins, M. (2010), «Bas van Fraassen on Scientific Representation», Analysis 70(3): 524–536. http://analysis.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/anq043?ijkey=8y8OZR6C4lhmJCy&keytype=ref.

  • Ghins, M. (2016a), “Evandro Agazzi on Scientific Objectivity”. Essay review of Evandro Agazzi’s Scientific Objectivity and its Contexts. Berlin: Springer. 2014. Metascience 25(1), 151–157, 2016. http://springer.longhoe.net/article/10.1007/s11016-015-0036-7?wt_mc=internal.event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorAssignedToIssue.

  • Ghins, M. (2016b), “Bas van Fraassen on Success and Adequacy in Representing and Modelling” in Lorenzo Magnani & Claudia Casadio (ed.), Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology. Theoretical and Cognitive Issues, Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics (SAPERE) 27, ch. 2, 21–42. Berlin: Springer. http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319389820.

  • Maxwell, G. (1962), “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities”, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. III.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1911), A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive. London: Longmans, Green and Co. First published in 1843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nola, R. (2008), “The Optimistic Meta-Induction and Ontological Continuity: the Case of the Electron”. In L. Soler, H. Sankey and P. Hoyningen-Huene (eds.) Rethinking Scientific Change and Theory Comparison: Stabilities, Ruptures, Incommensurabilities. Berlin: Springer. 159–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin, J. (1903), Traité de chimie physique. Les principes. Paris: Gauthier-Villars. http://iris.univ-lille1.fr/handle/1908/3160.

  • Perrin, J. (1909). «Mouvement brownien et grandeurs moléculaires». Paris: Radium 6 (12), 353–360. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00242381/document.

  • Perrin, J. (1913), Les atomes. Paris: Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psillos, S. (1999), Scientific Realism. How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psillos, S. (2011), “Moving Molecules Above the Scientific Horizon: On Perrin’s Case for Realism”, J Gen Philos Sci 42: 339–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psillos, S. (2014), «The view from Within and the View from Above: Looking at van Fraassen’s Perrin», in Gonzalez, W. (ed.) (2014), 143–166. M. Ghins, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium.- michel.ghins@uclouvain.be.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P. (2002), Representation and Invariance of Scientific Structures. Stanford: CLSI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, B. (2008), Scientific Representation. Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, B. (2010), “Reply to Contessa, Ghins, Healey”. Analysis 70(3): 547–556. http://analysis.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/anq043?ijkey=8y8OZR6C4lhmJCy&keytype=ref.

  • Zalta, E. (1988), Intensional logic and the metaphysics of intentionality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michel Ghins .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ghins, M. (2017). Selective Scientific Realism: Representation, Objectivity and Truth. In: Agazzi, E. (eds) Varieties of Scientific Realism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51608-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Navigation