Scientific Realism: An Elaboration and a Defence

  • Howard Sankey
Part of the The Frontiers Collection book series (FRONTCOLL)


This paper describes the position of scientific realism and presents the basic lines of argument for the position. Simply put, scientific realism is the view that the aim of science is knowledge of the truth about observable and unobservable aspects of a mind-independent, objective reality. Scientific realism is supported by several distinct lines of argument. It derives from a non-anthropocentric conception of our place in the natural world, and it is grounded in the epistemology and metaphysics of common sense. Further, the success of science entitles us to infer both the approximate truth of mature scientific theories and the truth-conduciveness of the methods of science.


Common Sense Scientific Theory Natural Kind External World Sound Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. HowardSankey’s contribution first appeared in Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 98 (2001), pp. 35–54.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, DavidM. (1999), “A Naturalist Program: Epistemology and Ontology,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, vol. 73, pp. 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd, Richard (1984), “The Current Status of Scientific Realism.” In: Leplin (ed.; 1984, pp. 41–82 ).Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, Keith (1988), “Philosophy and Common Sense,” Philosophy, vol. 63, pp. 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Churchland, Paul (1979), Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Devitt, Michael (21991), Realism and Truth. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Devitt, Michael (2001), “Incommensurability and the Priority of Meta-physics.” In: Hoyningen-Huene/Sankey (eds.; 2001 ), pp. 143–157.Google Scholar
  8. Devitt, Michael and Kim Sterelny (1987), Language and Reality. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Ellis, Brian (1990), Truth and Objectivity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Feyerabend, Paul (1975), Against Method. London: New Left Books. Hacking, Ian (1983), Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hooker, Clifford A. (1987), A Realistic Theory of Science. Albany: Suny Press.Google Scholar
  12. Horwich, Paul (1990), Truth. Cambridge, Ma: Mit Press. Hoyningen-Huene, PAUL (1993), Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: ThomasGoogle Scholar
  13. S. Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hoyningen-Huene, PAUL and Howard Sankey (eds.; 2001), Incommensurability and Related Matters,Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Sci-Google Scholar
  14. ence, vol. 216. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Kitcher, Philip (1993), The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kornblith, Hilary (1993), Inductive Inference and its Natural Ground. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kuhn, Thomas S. (21970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Laudan, Larry (1981), “A Confutation of Convergent Realism,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 48, pp. 19–48.Google Scholar
  19. Laudan, Larry (1987), “Progress or Rationality? The Prospects For Nor-mative Naturalism,” American Philosophical, Quarterly, vol. 24, pp. 19–31. Leplin, Jarrett (ed.; 1984), Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of Califor-nia Press.Google Scholar
  20. Marsonet, Michele (ed.; 2002 ), The Problem of Realism. Aldershot: Ashgate. Musgrave, Alan (1999a), Essays on Realism and Rationalism. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  21. Musgrave, Alan (1999b), “The Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism.” In: MUSGRAVE (1999a), pp. 52–70 [First published in 1988 ].Google Scholar
  22. Musgrave, Alan (1999c), “The T-Scheme plus Epistemic Truth Equals Idealism.” In: MUSGRAVE ( 1999a ), pp. 185–192.Google Scholar
  23. Nola, Robert and HowardSankey (eds.; 2000 ), After Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend: Recent Issues in Theories of Scientific Method, Australasian Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 15. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Psillos, Stathis (1999), Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  25. Putnam, Hilary (1975), “What is mathematical truth?” In: Mathematics, Matter and Method. Philosophical Papers, vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 60–78.Google Scholar
  26. Putnam, Hilary (1978), Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  27. Putnam, Hilary (1981), Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rescher, Nicholas (1977), Methodological Pragmatism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Salmon, Wesley C. (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sankey, Howard (1997), Rationality, Relativism and Incommensurability. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  31. Sankey, Howard (ed.; 1999 ), Causation and Laws of Nature, Australasian Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 14. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Sankey, Howard (2000a), “Methodological Pluralism, Normative Naturalism and the Realist Aim of Science.” In: Nola/Sankey (eds.; 2000 ), pp. 211–229.Google Scholar
  33. Sankey, Howard (2000b), “What is Scientific Realism?”, Divinatio: Studia Culturologia Series, vol. 12, pp. 103–120.Google Scholar
  34. Sankey, Howard (2002), “Realism, Method and Truth.” In: MARSONET (ed.; 2002 ), pp. 64–81.Google Scholar
  35. Sellars, Wilfrid (1963a), “Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man”. In: Sellars ( 1963b ), pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
  36. Sellars, Wilfrid (1963b), Science, Perception and Reality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  37. Smart, John J.C. (1963), Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  38. Stich, Stephen, (1990), The Fragmentation of Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. VanFraassen, Bas C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Amis, Martin (2001), Experience. London: Vintage. Barnes, S. Barry (1992), “Realism, Relativism and Finitism.” In: Raven et al. (eds.; 1992 ), pp. 131–147.Google Scholar
  41. Hohler, Sabine (2001), Depth Records and Ocean Volumes: Ocean Profiling by Sounding Technology, 1850–1930. Berlin [Presented to the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science].Google Scholar
  42. Raven, Diederick, LietekeVanVuchtTijssen, and Jan DeWolf (eds.; 1992 ), Cognitive Relativism and Social Science. London: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  43. Pinch, Trevor (1986), Confronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar-Neutrino Detection. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Pinch, Trevor (1994), Relativism: Is it Worth the Candle? Yes, but only Methodological Relativism. New Orleans [Presented to HSS Session “Relativism, Social Constructivism and the Contemporary Historiography of Science,” HSS Annual Meeting; October 12–14].Google Scholar
  45. Pinch, Trevor and FrankTrocco (2002), Analog Days: The Invention and Impact of the Moog Synthesizer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard Sankey

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations