Abstract
There are arguments for and against realism. None of them is conclusive, but some are better than others. Which one is the best argument for realism? According to some the best argument is the success of scientific theories. This is a mistake. The best argument is not the success, but the failure of realistic theories. First of all there are much more false theories than true ones. But it is not a question of quantities, but rather a question of logic: Since theories cannot be proven, it may happen that theories are confirmed although they are false. But if they are disproved they must be false. Thus the realist can explain why a theory fails (because the world is different from what the theory says). But the antirealist cannot explain the failure. Hence realism has more explanatory power than antirealism. That’s why we should keep to realism.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Putnam, Hilary: What is „Realism“? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76 (1976) 177–194, p. 177.
Van Fraassen, Bas: The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1980, pp. 37–39.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vollmer, G. (2017). Why Do Theories Fail? The Best Argument for Realism. In: Agazzi, E. (eds) Varieties of Scientific Realism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51608-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51608-0_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-51607-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-51608-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)