QMB 6603: Data Analysis for Managers

1. Scientific Realism
Brian Galvin
Kevin Bernhardt
Troy Buckner

2. What is scientific realism?
• Positive epistemic attitude towards the content
of our best scientific theories and models
• Basically, it‟s the idea that science, although not
perfect, is doing a decent job of explaining the
world

3. Observable vs. Unobservable
• Observable – things that can be perceived by our
unaided senses (planets, platypuses)
• Unobservable – cannot be perceived by our
unaided senses (proteins, protons, etc.)
• Scientific realism does not discriminate between
the two

4. Varying Definitions
• Most define scientific realism in terms of the
truth or approximate truth of scientific theories
or certain aspects of theories
• Some define it in terms of the successful
reference of theoretical terms to things in the
world, both observable and unobservable
• Others define it not in terms of truth or
reference, but in terms of belief in the ontology
of scientific theories.

5. What do they have in common?
• A commitment to the idea that our best theories
have a certain epistemic status
• They yield knowledge of aspects of the world,
including unobservable aspects.

6. What is a scientific realist?
• Someone who believes that science aims to
produce true descriptions of things in the world

7. Three Dimensions of Realist
Commitment
• Metaphysical – idea that the world exists outside
of our minds
• Semantic – literal interpretation of scientific
claims made about the world. Any claims should
be stated as fact, whether true or not.
• Epistemological – theoretical claims constitute
knowledge of the world

8. What does scientific realism mean?
• Our best scientific theories give true or
approximately true descriptions of observable
and unobservable aspects of a mindindependent world

9. Qualifications and Variations
• What theories should realists be realist about?
• Many of our theories are likely false in the
strictest sense, but they might be very close to
true

10. Maturity of theories
• Theories suitable for realist commitment are
called “mature”
• Came from a well-established field
• Has been around a while
• Has survived scrutiny and scientific testing
• The more mature, the greater the commitment
from realists
• Realists believe that as science develops over
time, theories converge closer to truth

11. Three Variations of Realism
• Explanationist – reserves greatest commitment
to components of a theory that are indispensible
to explaining their empirical success
• Entity – causal knowledge of an unobservable
entity is enough to support realism regarding it
• Structural – One should be a realist because of
the physical structure of things, not because of
descriptions of their nature

12. Considerations in Favor of Scientific
Realism (and Responses)
• 1. The Miracle Argument:
▫ Best theories are extremely successful.
▫ Why?
▫ Realist: Because they are true! If not, it must be a miracle that
they work so well.
• Rebuttal: Why do we need an explanation of success?
▫ Theories = Well-adapted organisms
• What makes a particular theory successful (not just in
general)?
▫ Identify specific features, explanation of unobservables
• Base rate fallacy
▫ If a theory is successful, we cannot claim it as true since we do not
know the base rate of true theories (could be a false positive)

13. Considerations in Favor of Scientific
Realism (and Responses)
• 2. Corroboration
▫ Unobservables detected through multiple techniques.
▫ Light vs.
▫ electron microscopy
• Rebuttal: Intention of reproducing existing output.

14. Considerations in Favor of Scientific
Realism (and Responses)
• 3. Selective Optimism/Skepticism
▫ A. Explanationism
 Focus on parts of theories worthy of realist
commitment
 True theoretical components survive and live in
current theories
 Problem: Realists must provide a objective
measure to pick out crucial parts, not post-hoc.

15. Considerations in Favor of Scientific
Realism (and Responses)
▫ B. Entity Realism
 The more you can manipulate the unobservable and
produce predicted outcomes, the more believable a
theory is.
 Entity Realist: Belief of entity vs. belief of theory
describing it – 2 different things. Disputed claim...
▫ C. Structural Realism
 Epistemic view: Describes relationships between
unobservables, not their nature.
 Ontic view: Knowledge of unobservables‟ structure.
 Problem: Can you know structure without
relationships?

16. Considerations Against Scientific
Realism (and Responses)
Fish caught
• Underdetermination of Theory by Data
▫ Hypotheses (i.e. testable predictions) cannot stand
alone – they require “auxiliary” assumptions.
▫ Hypothesis = incorrect. Error may not exist in claim,
per se
▫ Problem to Realists:
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Day
6
7
8
9
10

17. Considerations Against Scientific
Realism (and Responses)
... Underdetermination of Theory by Data
• Rebuttal: Realism rely on two explanations:
▫ A “wait and see” mentality
▫ Data is apt to change over time

18. Considerations Against Scientific
Realism (and Responses)
• Skepticism about Inference to the Best
Explanation
▫ Realist: Although many theories exist, one will have
explanatory superiority (i.e. provide the “best”
explanation)
▫ But will this thinking yield knowledge?
▫ 2 problems:
 A. How to judge theories in relation to being true
(criteria and meaning)
 B. “Best of a bad lot” argument
• Rebuttal: The “best of a bad lot” may still describe
unobservables in a way to meet standards of
realism....

19. Considerations Against Scientific
Realism (and Responses)
• The Pessimistic Induction
▫ If most previous theories are false, so are current
ones!
• Rebuttal:
▫ Considering only the mature theories.
▫ Base rate fallacy
▫ A few good examples should lead antirealists to
reconsider....

20. Considerations Against Scientific
Realism (and Responses)
• Skepticism about Approximate Truth
▫ Abstraction and idealization seen in even our best
theories.....
▫ Gradually converging on truth – theories are open
to improvement
▫ Problem: Defining approximate truth
 Formally: Comparing true/false
consequences, world‟s approach, type hierarchy
approach
 Informally: “theories build on „limiting cases‟ from
their predeccesors”

21. Antirealism -
Realism vs. the ism’s
• Any position apposed to Realism
via one or more of the following
▫ Mind is not independent of reality
▫ Theories may not be interpreted literally
▫ Theories may not constitute knowledge of
observable and unobservable

22. Realism vs. the ism’s
• Empiricism
▫ Doesn't like the idea that one can gain knowledge
of the unobservable
▫ This position believes knowledge can only be
acquired through experience.

23. Realism vs. the ism’s
• Constructive Empiricism
▫
▫
▫
▫
(Sometimes referred to as Instrumentalism)
Van Fraassens revision of Empiricism
A more realistic view – not as picky
Can believe theories that include the unobservable
only if nothing is concluded about the
unobservable
Still kind of picky and still antirealism

24. Realism vs. the ism’s
• Historicism
▫ Two concepts can only be understood in correctly
historicized manner - from the perspectives of the
paradigms in which they occur
▫ Kuhn brought this ism about with “The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions”
▫ Antirealism due to mind not existing independent
of the world

25. Realism vs. the ism’s
• Social Constructivism
▫ States any knowledge generating process is
influenced by social factors
▫ SSK - sociology of scientific knowledge – studies
the social aspects of how science studies the world
▫ Because all knowledge is influenced by social
factors, the mind is not independent of reality

26. Realism vs. the ism’s
• Pragmatism & Quietism
▫ Does anyone really know?
▫ Dialectical Paralysis – too many isim‟s
▫ Quietism states that nothing sensible can be said.
Wittgenstein
▫ The competition between isim‟s causes a problem
within its self

27. Realism & the ism’s vs. NOA
• NOA – Natural Ontological Attitude
▫ A compromise of the core common realist and
antirealist theories
▫ NOA argues neither realism or antirealism is tenable
▫ Are disputes between realism and antirealism
resolvable? No because all positions come with their
own rules
▫ But this exercise in futility does lead to a great deal of
insight of how knowledge comes about