tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post113987871845665305..comments2024-03-28T02:29:26.853-07:00Comments on Obscure and Confused Ideas: realism and the limits of scientific explanationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-58053579060078889252008-10-15T06:05:00.000-07:002008-10-15T06:05:00.000-07:00David - "a poor explanation is better than no expl...David - "a poor explanation is better than no explanation at all"<BR/><BR/>Is it? That sounds more like a defence for religion than for a philosophy of science. What's wrong with suspending judgement? It's not as if any progress is being arrested without that explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-8892642984396806952007-12-01T11:28:00.000-08:002007-12-01T11:28:00.000-08:00Hi Marco --Thanks for this. Re: (ii), I think you ...Hi Marco --<BR/><BR/>Thanks for this. Re: (ii), I think you can now see why I asked, in the post your commented on previously, why I would want [local realism + global anti-realism] to be viable: my argument says that the case-by-case NMA is OK, since (good) individual theories do generate new predictions or unify previously disparate phenomena. But the global NMA doesn't. (I have not given an argument FOR anti-realism, just an argument against ONE justification for global realism. So [Global anti-realism + local realism] is not forced upon me, but I do wonder whether it's consistent.)<BR/><BR/>Re: (ii): I probably need to think about this a bit more, and you may be right. I hadn't really thought about SINGULAR explanations much; I think it's clear that positing the existence of electrons does generate new predictions and perhaps unifies various phenomena, but I hadn't really thought about positing THIS PARTICULAR electron's existence explaining THIS PARTICULAR track. But, for the NMA issue, I think that doesn't matter, since the NMA isn't supposed to offer a singular explanation.Greg Frost-Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08563986984421570652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-33468021873203938832007-12-01T05:28:00.000-08:002007-12-01T05:28:00.000-08:00Greg -I enjoyed this - original stuff. Two objecti...Greg -<BR/>I enjoyed this - original stuff. Two objections:<BR/>(i) there are many examples of scientific posits explaining only one type of fact. E.g. we believe we see the trajectory of a particle because that explains the trail in the cloud chamber.<BR/>(ii) One way of running the NMA is theory by theory. So let's grant that scientists only like a theory if it explains a range of types of fact. Theory T explains F1, F2 and F3 -type facts. But explanation is factive: only true theories explain. So T is true.marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16164415639636739155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-1140054378111534862006-02-15T17:46:00.000-08:002006-02-15T17:46:00.000-08:00Protagoras -- Thanks for the vote of confidence!Ke...Protagoras -- Thanks for the vote of confidence!<BR/><BR/>Kenny -- I need to think about what you've said a bit more. I'm actually not completely sure I've understood you; I'll study your comments and let you know if anything occurs to me.<BR/><BR/>David -- Welcome, and thanks for the comment. It's a good point, and prima facie plausible; but I think the stuff under my heading "Evidence for (P1)" counts as (quasi-)empirical evidence for the claim that there are some explanations that are so bad, that (the vast majority of) scientists would rather leave the fact unexplained. And more generally, scientific explanations do come to an end somewhere, for a particular science at a particular time (e.g. with fundmental laws).Greg Frost-Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08563986984421570652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-1139964108318582352006-02-14T16:41:00.000-08:002006-02-14T16:41:00.000-08:00I am no fan of the no miracles argument,and I'm su...I am no fan of the no miracles argument,and I'm sure I missing something obvious here, but how about the following defense of it: a poor explanation is better than no explanation at all, and the realist explanation is the only explanation on offer. Putnam, recall, paired his NMA with a negative argument for realism- the failure of non-realist explanations of success.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-1139881813661617902006-02-13T17:50:00.000-08:002006-02-13T17:50:00.000-08:00Well, I came to the argument with a firmly entrenc...Well, I came to the argument with a firmly entrenched bias. But while I've always thought that scientific realism doesn't actually do anything that we need to have done, I thought this was an unusually elegant way of getting to that conclusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com