Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T01:24:01.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Realism, Miracles, and the Common Cause

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

James Robert Brown
James Robert Brown*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scientific realism is the doctrine that our theories are intended to literal descriptions of the world. It is the claim that there is a realm of non-observable entities and processes, and that science legitimately appeals to this realm in its explanations of the observable world. This is a sketchy characterization, and with it go some sketchy arguments. These are the miracle arguments for scientific realism. Here is the way J.J.C. Smart puts his version:

If the phenomenalist about theoretical entities is correct we must believe in a cosmic coincidence. That is, if this is so, statements about electrons, etc., are of only instrumental value: they simply enable us to predict phenomena on the level of galvanometers and cloud chambers. They do nothing to remove the surprising character of these phenomena....[But is] it not odd that the phenomena of the world should be such as to make a purely instrumental theory true?

Type
Part III. Scientific Realism and Observation
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1982 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1982 , 1982 , pp. 98 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

For helpful comments I am indebted to Kathleen Okruhlik.

References

Bell, J.S. (1964). “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox.” Physics 1: 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J.S. (1966). “On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics.” Review of Modern Physics 38: 147–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clauser, J. and Horne, M. (1974). “Experimental Consequences of Objective Local Theories.” Physical Review D 10: 526–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clauser, J. and Shimony, A. (1978). “Bell's Theorem: Experimental Tests and Implications.” Reports on Progress in Physics 41: 1881–1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Espagnat, B. (1976). Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. 2nd ed. Reading, Mass.: W.A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N. (1935). “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete.” Physical Review 47: 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1956). The Direction of Time. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1978). “Why Ask ‘Why?’? An Inquiry Concerning Scientific Explanation.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 51: 683–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J.J.C. (1963). Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Sumner, W. and Woods, J. (eds.). (1969). Necessary Truth. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1981). “The Charybdis of Realism: Epistemological Implications of Bell's Inequality.” Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Wigner, E.P. (1970). “On Hidden Variables and Quantum Mechanical Properties.” American Journal of Physics 38: 1005–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar