Scientific Realism in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Seven Sciences and History and Philosophy of Science

Philosophy of Science 87 (2):336-364 (2020)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
We report the results of a study that investigated the views of researchers working in seven scientific disciplines and in history and philosophy of science in regard to four hypothesized dimensions of scientific realism. Among other things, we found that natural scientists tended to express more strongly realist views than social scientists, that history and philosophy of science scholars tended to express more antirealist views than natural scientists, that van Fraassen’s characterization of scientific realism failed to cluster with more standard characterizations, and that those who endorsed the pessimistic induction were no more or less likely to endorse antirealism.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-06-11
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Hypothesis Testing in Scientific Practice: An Empirical Study.Moti Mizrahi - forthcoming - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science:1-21.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
402 ( #10,768 of 50,130 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
211 ( #1,871 of 50,130 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.