Ph103: Discussion Questions 5

Short Answer Questions

1. What is scientific realism?
2. Give an example of underdetermination of theory by evidence.
3. How does underdetermination undermine the No Miracles argument?

For Further Discussion

• Making No Miracles Precise. Write the 'No Miracles' argument in an interesting premise-conclusion form, where the conclusion is: 'It is extremely likely that our best scientific theories are at least approximately true.' Do you believe the premises are correct?
• The intuition behind 'No Miracles.' Imagine that you're a bouncer for a casino with strict policy that prohibits counting cards. (An expert practitioner at counting cards can know a great deal about which cards are available in the deck even without observing them.) Suddenly, disaster strikes when well-known mathematician walks up to the black-jack table, sits down, and proceeds to absolutely clean everybody out -- she wins 29 rounds and loses 1.
  • What is the best explanation of the success of the mathematician? Explain using a 'No Miracles' style argument.
  • How is the success of the gambler analogous to the success of science? How is it disanalogous?
  • How would the antirealist/instrumentalist position be expressed in the analogy of the gambler? Do you find this view about the mathematician to be plausible or implausible?
• Underdetermination. A theory is underdetermined if there are multiple, two equally plausible theories but distinct that equally well make predictions and explain existing evidence.
  • Try to think of an example of underdetermination in everyday life (apart from the examples we have seen in class).
  • How common is it to find everyday examples of underdetermination?
  • Should we expect underdetermination in science to be more or less common?
  • Explain how underdetermination (when it occurs in science) undermines the no miracles argument.
  • How do you think the realist should respond to such examples?
• Examples of underdetermination? For any given scientific theory, recall that we had a simple technique for generating underdetermination, i.e. two distinct scientific theories with equal predictive power and which equally explain the evidence.
  • Explain this technique for generating underdetermination.
  • Is this a convincing example of underdetermination? Why or why not?
  • What do you think would a genuinely interesting example of underdetermination be like?