Surrealism Is Not an Alternative to Scientific Realism

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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.
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Reprint years
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2019-09-17
Latest version: 2 (2019-09-17)
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
96 ( #46,254 of 64,211 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #56,617 of 64,211 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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