Surrealism Is Not an Alternative to Scientific Realism
|dc.identifier.citation||LOGOS & EPISTEME, v.10, no.4, pp.379 - 393||ko|
|dc.description.abstract||Surrealism holds that observables behave as if T were true, whereas scientific realism holds that T is true. Surrealism and scientific realism give different explanations of why T is empirically adequate. According to surrealism, T is empirically adequate because observables behave as if it were true. According to scientific realism, T is empirically adequate because it is true. I argue that the surrealist explanation merely clarifies the concept of empirical adequacy, whereas the realist explanation makes an inductive inference about T. Therefore, the surrealist explanation is a conceptual one, whereas the realist explanation is an empirical one, and the former is not an alternative to the latter.||ko|
|dc.publisher||Institute for Economic and Social Research of the Romanian Academy||ko|
|dc.title||Surrealism Is Not an Alternative to Scientific Realism||ko|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.