Historical Inductions: New Cherries, Same Old Cherry-picking

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In this article, I argue that arguments from the history of science against scientific realism, like the arguments advanced by P. Kyle Stanford and Peter Vickers, are fallacious. The so-called Old Induction, like Vickers's, and New Induction, like Stanford's, are both guilty of confirmation bias—specifically, of cherry-picking evidence that allegedly challenges scientific realism while ignoring evidence to the contrary. I also show that the historical episodes that Stanford adduces in support of his New Induction are indeterminate between a pessimistic and an optimistic interpretation. For these reasons, these arguments are fallacious, and thus do not pose a serious challenge to scientific realism
Reprint years
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2015-11-13
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
488 ( #13,707 of 65,593 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
33 ( #25,055 of 65,593 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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