No Miracles Argument

Definition

The no miracles argument is a philosophical reasoning that supports scientific realism by asserting that the success of scientific theories would be inexplicable if they were not at least approximately true. This argument connects the success of science to the belief that our best scientific theories accurately describe unobservable entities, suggesting that if these theories were false, the remarkable predictive power and effectiveness of science would be a miraculous coincidence.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The no miracles argument was popularized by philosopher Hilary Putnam in the 1970s as part of the debate on scientific realism.
2. It suggests that the predictive success of scientific theories indicates they are likely true or close to the truth about unobservable aspects of the world.
3. The argument posits that if scientific theories were completely false, their successful applications in technology and predictions would be astonishingly improbable.
4. Critics of the no miracles argument often present alternative explanations for scientific success, such as luck or pragmatic utility, which do not require a commitment to realism.
5. The no miracles argument is often contrasted with constructive empiricism, which argues that science need only be empirically adequate rather than true.

Review Questions

• How does the no miracles argument support scientific realism over anti-realism?
  • The no miracles argument bolsters scientific realism by emphasizing that the extraordinary success of scientific theories would be inexplicable if those theories were false. It highlights that if our best theories were not at least approximately true, then their consistent ability to predict and manipulate phenomena would seem like an incredible fluke. This reasoning contrasts sharply with anti-realism, which posits that success can be explained without committing to the truth of these theories.
• What are some key criticisms against the no miracles argument and how do they challenge its validity?
  • Critics argue that the no miracles argument relies too heavily on the assumption that successful predictions inherently imply truth. They suggest alternatives like luck or pragmatic success as explanations for why certain theories work well in practice without asserting their truth. This raises doubts about whether scientific success is genuinely indicative of realism, leading to arguments favoring anti-realist views or positions like constructive empiricism, which emphasizes empirical adequacy instead.
• Evaluate the implications of accepting the no miracles argument for our understanding of scientific theories and their relationship to reality.
  • Accepting the no miracles argument leads to a stronger commitment to the idea that our best scientific theories provide an accurate representation of reality, including unobservable phenomena. This perspective encourages further investment in theoretical science and underlines the philosophical significance of scientific inquiry as a means to uncover truths about nature. It challenges us to consider not just how well theories predict but also what this implies about their relation to reality, pushing back against views that separate empirical adequacy from ontological claims.

Related terms

Scientific Realism: The view that scientific theories provide a true or approximately true description of the world, including unobservable entities.

Anti-Realism: The perspective that questions or denies the truth or approximate truth of scientific theories, often emphasizing the importance of empirical adequacy over truth.

Empirical Adequacy: The criterion for a theory being deemed successful based on its ability to accurately predict observable phenomena, regardless of its truth regarding unobservable aspects.