Surrealism Is Not an Alternative to Scientific Realism

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author Park, Seungbae ko
dc.date.available 2020-02-13T08:41:19Z -
dc.date.created 2020-02-07 ko
dc.date.issued 2019-12 ko
dc.identifier.citation LOGOS & EPISTEME, v.10, no.4, pp.379 - 393 ko
dc.identifier.issn 2069-0533 ko
dc.identifier.uri https://scholarworks.unist.ac.kr/handle/201301/31137 -
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.language 영어 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
dc.type ARTICLE ko
dc.type.rims ART ko
dc.identifier.doi 10.5840/logos-episteme201910435 ko
dc.identifier.url https://www.pdcnet.org/logos-episteme/content/logos-episteme_2019_0010_0004_0379_0393 ko
Appears in Collections:
DGS_Journal Papers

find_unist can give you direct access to the published full text of this article. (UNISTARs only)

Show simple item record

qrcode

  • mendeley

    citeulike

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

MENU