Abstract
AbstractStructural realism claims to be the ‘best of both worlds’ by reconciling the two main considerations in the scientific realism debate–the No Miracles Argument (NMA) and the Pessimistic Induction (PI)–which had initially seemed to pull in opposite directions. More recently both the NMA and the PI have been argued to be fallacious (both allegedly committing ‘the base rate fallacy’). If so, this would clearly undermine structural realism. This chapter concentrates just on the NMA and argues that a fallacy results only if the argument is formalised in ways that should always have been recognised as inappropriate. The underlying intuition remains untouched and remains a good, though of course far from conclusive, reason for adopting structural realism.KeywordsStructural RealismWhite SpotScientific RealismPredictive SuccessEmpirical SuccessThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
