Week 6 Help Center Learn more.

Are Scientific Theories True?

Dr. Michela Massimi

In this session we will explore a central and ongoing debate in contemporary philosophy of science: whether or not scientific theories are true. Or better, whether a scientific theory needs be 'true' to be good at all. The answer to this question comes in two main varieties. Scientific realists believe that theories ought to be true in order to be good. We will analyse their main argument for this claim (which goes under the name of 'no-miracles argument'), and some prominent objections to it. Scientific anti-realists, on the other hand, defend the view that there is nothing special about 'truth' and that scientific theories and scientific progress can be understood without appeal to it. The aim of this session is to present both views, their main arguments, and prospects.

Resources

The video lectures for this week will be available here

The slides used in this week's lecture are here

The transcript for the lecture can be found here

Assessment

In addition to the in-video quizzes, there will be a short quiz for this week's material. Please note that to complete the course, you must complete this quiz two weeks after the end of the course at the latest. See the course logistics page for further details about the assessment for this course.

Additional Resources

An excellent survey of the debate surrounding scientific realism can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, where the arguments in favor and against the position are carefully presented and an overview of alternative positions is also offered.

The following entry on van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism is also very clear in laying out arguments pros and cons the position, including the arguments mentioned in today’s lecture (the no-miracles argument and inference to the best explanation).

You may also want to check the following entry on models in science for an overview of the ontological and epistemological issues arising from modeling techniques in science, and how they bear on discussions about realism and antirealism.

For a scholarly analysis of scientific realism, the following article available through JSTOR is also very helpful in mapping the territory: Stathis Psillos (2000) "The present state of the scientific realism debate", British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

As always, please share your thoughts and questions about this week’s lecture in the discussion forums!

And if this week’s topic and field has inspired you and you want to know more about philosophy of science, please check out our new MOOC Philosophy and the Sciences (https://www.coursera.org/course/philsci) which starts today (the 20th of October)!