Faassen's Arguments Of Scientific Realism

1287 Words3 Pages

In response to Bas C. Van Fraassen’s argument for constructive empiricism, Alan Musgrave wrote an essay entitled, Realism versus Constructive Empiricism, as an argument for realism. In our essay we are attempting to rebut some of the arguments Van Fraassen’s makes as well demonstrate the importance of accepting scientific theories as a form of truth regardless of their overall Truth value by utilizing some of Musgrave’s arguments. We will do this by comparing the results of several studies recently published in the journal, Biosciences-Discuss, about oceanic acidification and its overall effect on oceanic biodiversity, and examine some of the claims made from an anti-realist view as well as the possible ramification of committing to anti-realism over realism. What is Scientific Realism? Scientific realism is defined by Grover Maxwell in his essay, The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities as: “insisting that scientific theories reveal facts about the world beyond our capacity to directly perceive().” What Maxwell is saying here is that, realists believe unobservable entities, such …show more content…

This is an important distinction to be made. While there are certain tests that can be run, and specific chemicals that can be added to indicate the presence or absence of a chemical via color, is that really observation or is it instead detection? If we are detecting it and not observing it can we draw and relation between human activity and ocean acidification? Would it not also be possible that carbon is somehow being released into the ocean via some undiscovered under water event? The entire research paper cited above is nothing but a compilation of years worth of measurements done on ocean acidification. While anti-realists may question the validity of these findings it is important to ask two more questions, what if these findings are real and what if these findings are not

Open Document