The No‐Miracles Argument for Realism: Inference to an Unacceptable Explanation

Philosophy of Science 77 (1):35-58 (2010)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
I argue that a certain type of naturalist should not accept a prominent version of the no-miracles argument (NMA). First, scientists (usually) do not accept explanations whose explanans-statements neither generate novel predictions nor unify apparently disparate established claims. Second, scientific realism (as it appears in the NMA) is an explanans that makes no new predictions and fails to unify disparate established claims. Third, many proponents of the NMA explicitly adopt a naturalism that forbids philosophy of science from using any methods not employed by science itself. Therefore, such naturalistic philosophers of science should not accept the version of scientific realism that appears in the NMA.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2014-05-17
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
807 ( #6,691 of 64,146 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
39 ( #19,832 of 64,146 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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