, Volume 82, Issue 5, pp 993–1014 | Cite as

Newman’s Objection and the No Miracles Argument

Original Research


Structural realists claim that we should endorse only what our scientific theories say about the structure of the unobservable world. But according to Newman’s Objection, the structural realist’s claims about unobservables are trivially true. In recent years, several theorists have offered responses to Newman’s Objection. But a common complaint is that these responses “give up the spirit” of the structural realist position. In this paper, I will argue that the simplest way to respond to Newman’s Objection is to return to one of the standard motivations for adopting structural realism in the first place: the No Miracles Argument. Far from betraying the spirit of structural realism, the solution I present is available to any theorist who endorses this argument.


Structural realism Newman’s objection No miracles argument Pessimistic induction 


  1. Ainsworth, P. (2009). Newman’s objection. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60(1), 135–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Demopoulos, W., & Friedman, M. (1985). Critical notice: Bertrand Russell’s the analysis of matter: Its historical context and contemporary interest. Philosophy of Science, 52, 621–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. French, S., & Ladyman, J. (2003). Remodelling structural realism: Quantum physics and the metaphysics of structure. Synthese, 136(1), 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frigg, R., & Votsis, I. (2011). Everything you always wanted to know about structural realism but were afraid to ask. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 227–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hoefer, C. (2007). The third way on objective probability: A sceptic’s guide to objective chance. Mind, 116(463), 549–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Howson, C. (2000). Hume’s problem: Induction and the justification of belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ketland, J. (2004). Empirical adequacy and ramsification. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55, 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ladyman, J. (1998). What is structural realism? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 29, 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (2007). Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lange, M. (2009). Must the fundamental laws of physics be complete? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 78(2), 312–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. (2009). Ramseyan humility. In Robert Nola & David Braddon-Mitchell (Eds.), Conceptual analysis and philosophical naturalism (pp. 203–222). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Magnus, P. D., & Callender, C. (2004). Realist ennui and the base rate fallacy. Philosophy of Science, 71, 320–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maudlin, T. (2011). Quantum nonlocality and relativity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maxwell, G. (1970). Structural realism and the meaning of theoretical terms. In S. Winokur & M. Radner (Eds.), Analyses of theories, and methods of physics and psychology (pp. 181–192). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  17. Melia, J., & Saatsi, J. (2006). Ramseyfication and theoretical content. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57(3), 561–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Musgrave, A. (1988). The ultimate argument for scientific realism. In R. Nola (Ed.), Relativism and realism in sciences. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Newman, M. H. A. (1928). Mr. Russell’s causal theory of perception. Mind, 37, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Russell, B. (1927). The analysis of matter. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Schaffer, J. (2004). Two conceptions of sparse properties. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 85, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Suppe, F. (1974). The structure of scientific theories. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  24. Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43, 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Worrall, J. (2009). Miracles, pessimism, and scientific realism, philpapers.
  27. Wright, A. (manuscript). Science through Fresnel’s lens: Distortions and illuminations of structural realisms.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations