Advertisement

Scientifically Defending Realism II: Maddy’s Piecemeal Realism

Chapter
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

In this chapter, I discuss Maddy’s piecemeal realism, as she exemplifies it with regard to the debate on the ontological status of atoms that was provoked by Perrin’s seminal experiments in the early twentieth century. By considering the central experiments in some detail, by contrasting Maddy’s reading of these experiments with van Fraassen’s, and by reconstructing the arguments proposed by Perrin and Poincaré for the reality of the atom, I argue that the gap between empirical research on the one hand and scientific realism on the other cannot be closed.

Keywords

Maddy Piecemeal realism van Fraassen Perrin Poincaré Reality of the atom Scientific realism Naturalism  

References

  1. Achinstein, Peter. 2002. Is There a Valid Experimental Argument for Scientific Realism? The Journal of Philosophy 99 (9): 470–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burge, Tyler. 2013. Cognition Through Understanding: Self-knowledge, Interlocution, Reasoning, Reflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Castro, Eduardo. 2013. Defending the Indispensability Argument: Atoms, Infinity and the Continuum. Journal for General Philosophy of Science/Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 44: 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chalmers, Alan. 2011. Drawing Philosophical Lessons from Perrin’s Experiments on Brownian Motion: A Response to van Fraassen. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62: 711–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Egg, Matthias. 2014. Scientific Realism in Particle Physics. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Einstein, Albert. 1905. On the Movement of Small Particles Suspended in Stationary Liquids Required by the Molecular-Kinetic Theory of Heat. Annalen der Physik 17: 549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gardner, Michael R. 1979. Realism and Instrumentalism in 19th-Century Atomism. Philosophy of Science 46 (1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ivanova, Milena. 2013. Did Perrin’s Experiments Convert Poincaré to Scientific Realism? HoPos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 3: 1–19.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2015. Conventionalism, Structuralism and Neo-Kantianism in Poincaré’s Philosophy of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 52: 114–122.Google Scholar
  10. Ladyman, James. 2011. Structural Realism Versus Standard Scientific Realism: The Case of Phlogiston and Dephlogisticated Air. Synthese 180 (2): 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maddy, Penelope. 1997. Naturalism in Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2007. Second Philosophy. A Naturalistic Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Maxwell, Grover. 1962. The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities. In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. III, ed. Herbert Feigl and Grover Maxwell, 21–28. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  14. Nye, Mary Jo. 1972. Molecular Reality. A Perspective on the Scientific Work of Jean Perrin. London: MacDonald.Google Scholar
  15. Ostwald, Wilhelm. 1912. Outlines of General Chemistry, trans. W.W. Taylor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Perrin, Jean. 1909. Mouvement brownien et réalité moléculaire. Annales de chimie et de physique 8 (18): 5–114.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 1912. Les rapports de la matière et de l’éther. Journal de physique théorique et appliquée 2 (1): 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 1913. Atomes. Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan.Google Scholar
  19. Poincaré, Henri. 1905. La valeur de la science. Paris: Ernest Flammarion.Google Scholar
  20. Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism. How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2011. Moving Molecules Above the Scientific Horizon: On Perrin’s Case for Realism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science/Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 42 (2): 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Fraassen, Bas. 2009. The Perils of Perrin, in the Hands of Philosophers. Philosophical Studies 143 (1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wolff, Johanna. 2015. Naturalistic Quietism or Scientific Realism? Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0873-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations