Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:32:19.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Realism and Intensional Reference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Brendan P. Minogue*
Affiliation:
Youngstown State University

Extract

In The Structure of Scientific Inference ([2]), Mary Hesse has argued for a realist interpretation of science. Her realism, however, is not to be understood in the context of the traditional realist/instrumentalist debate within the philosophy of science. That debate focused on the question of whether or not science did anything other than systematize the empirical data given in our experience. The traditional realist answered “yes” and most frequently described the theoretical statements of science, not only as true, but also as providing descriptions of the world. The instrumentalist on the other hand answered “no” and ascribed no descriptive force to the theoretical statements of science. However, according to Hesse, neither party in the contemporary realism debate assumes the notion of an empirical given. Consequently, the present dispute must be understood as taking place on a level which is logically prior to its predecessor.

Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1978

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.)

References

[1] Goodman, Nelson. “Seven strictures on similarity.” Experience and Theory. Edited by L. Foster and J. W. Swanson. London: 1970.Google Scholar
[2] Hesse, Mary. The Structure of Scientific Inference. Berkeley: University of California, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Scheffler, Israel. Science and Subjectivity. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1967.Google Scholar