Abstract

In this paper, I introduce a new historical case study into the scientific realism debate. During the late-eighteenth century, the Scottish natural philosopher James Hutton made two important successful novel predictions. The first concerned granitic veins intruding from granite masses into strata. The second concerned what geologists now term “angular unconformities”: older sections of strata overlain by younger sections, the two resting at different angles, the former typically more inclined than the latter. These predictions, I argue, are potentially problematic for selective scientific realism in that constituents of Hutton's theory that would not be considered even approximately true today played various roles in generating them. The aim here is not to provide a full philosophical analysis but to introduce the case into the debate by detailing the history and showing why, at least prima facie, it presents a problem for selective realism. First, I explicate Hutton's theory. I then give an account of Hutton's predictions and their confirmations. Next, I explain why these predictions are relevant to the realism debate. Finally, I consider which constituents of Hutton's theory are, according to current beliefs, true (or approximately true), which are not (even approximately) true, and which were responsible for these successes.

Highlights

  • IntroductionMost widely discussed argument for scientific realism is the “explanationist”, “abductive”, or “no-miracles” argument

  • Perhaps the best known, most widely discussed argument for scientific realism is the “explanationist”, “abductive”, or “no-miracles” argument

  • I explain why these predictions are relevant to the realism debate

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Most widely discussed argument for scientific realism is the “explanationist”, “abductive”, or “no-miracles” argument. The primary strata had first formed from sedimentation They were consolidated by heat and pressure and uplifted by the expansion of molten matter. This displaced them from their original, horizontal position, causing them to take on a vertical or steeply inclined posture. 69e71), Hutton’s prediction was confirmed when, on the banks of Jed Water near Jedburgh where the schistus of the River Tweed meets the sandstone of the Teviot, he discovered vertical schistus overlain by horizontal sandstone (Fig. 2) He observed another, similar unconformity shortly afterwards in a brook to the south of the river Were not data from which Hutton derived his theory, but phenomena which he believed his e already complete e theory could explain, and which should be observed if the theory were correct

The case’s relevance to the realism debate
Funding source
Conclusion

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.