Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-07T05:26:59.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hacking's Experimental Realism: An Untenable Middle Ground

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Richard Reiner  and
Robert Pierson
Richard Reiner
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy York University
Robert Pierson
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As Laudan and Fine show, and Boyd concedes, the attempt to infer the truth of scientific realism from the fact that it putatively provides the best explanation of the instrumental success of science is circular, since what is to be shown is precisely the legitimacy of such abductive inferences. Hacking's “experimental argument for scientific realism about entities” is one of the few arguments for scientific realism that purports to avoid this circularity. We argue that Hacking's argument is as dependent on inference to the best explanation (IBE), and therefore as weak, as the other realist arguments.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 60 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1995

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

We are grateful to Joseph Agassi, Carolyn L. Burke, J. N. Hattiangadi, Kathleen Miller, and an anonymous reviewer for Philosophy of Science for helpful comments and criticisms, and to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for fellowship support during the writing of this paper.

‡

Send reprint requests to Richard Reiner, Department of Philosophy, S424 Ross, York University, 4700 Keele St., North York, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3.

References

Agassi, J. (1988), “Analogies, Hard and Soft”, in Helman, D. H., (ed.), D. H. Helman, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 401–419.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. (1991), “On the Current Status of Scientific Realism” (emended version), in Boyd, R., Gasper, P., and Trout, J. D., (eds.), Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 195–222.Google Scholar
Bridgman, P. W. (1959), The Way Things Are. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674731394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198247044.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1984), “The Natural Ontological Attitude”, reprinted in Boyd, R., Gasper, P., and Trout, J. D., (eds.), Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 261–278.Google Scholar
Gross, A. G. (1990), “Reinventing Certainty: The Significance of Ian Hacking's Realism”, in Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L., (eds.), A. Fine, M. Forbes, and L. Wessels, vol. 1. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 421–431.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983), Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511814563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1989a), “Extragalactic Reality: The Case of Gravitational Lensing”, Philosophy of Science 56: 555–581.10.1086/289514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1989b), “Philosophers of Experiment”, in Fine, A. and Leplin, J., (eds.), A. Fine and J. Leplin, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 147–156.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981), “A Confutation of Convergent Realism”, Philosophy of Science 48: 19–49.10.1086/288975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M. (1990), “Theory, Intervention and Realism”, Synthese 82: 1–22.10.1007/BF00413667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. (1993), “Discussion: Astronomy and Antirealism”, Philosophy of Science 60: 134–150.10.1086/289722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198244274.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar