Overview

Scientific realism is the view that the universe described by science is real regardless of how it may be interpreted. It holds that mature scientific theories are approximately true descriptions of both observable and unobservable aspects of the mind-independent world.

Core Idea

The core idea is that science isn’t just a useful tool for prediction; it actually tells us what the world is like. When physics talks about electrons, it’s because electrons actually exist, not just because the concept is useful.

Formal Definition

Scientific realism typically involves three commitments:

  1. Metaphysical: A mind-independent world exists.
  2. Semantic: Scientific theories should be interpreted literally (not metaphorically).
  3. Epistemic: Mature scientific theories constitute knowledge (they are approximately true).

Intuition

  • Miracle Argument: If scientific theories weren’t true, the fact that they work so amazingly well (predicting eclipses, building GPS, curing diseases) would be a “miracle.” The best explanation for the success of science is that it is true.
  • Anti-Realist: “We used to think the ether was real. We were wrong. Maybe we are wrong about electrons too.”

Examples

  • Atoms: A realist says atoms exist. An anti-realist (instrumentalist) says “atom” is just a useful model for organizing data.
  • Germ Theory: We can’t see viruses with the naked eye, but realists insist they are real entities causing disease.

Common Misconceptions

  • Misconception: Realists think current science is perfect.
    • Correction: They believe it is approximately true and improving, not infallible.
  • Misconception: If you are a realist, you must be a materialist.
    • Correction: You can be a realist about psychology or sociology too, not just matter.
  • Instrumentalism: The view that theories are just tools (instruments) for prediction, not truth-bearers.
  • Constructive Empiricism: Bas van Fraassen’s view that science aims only at “empirical adequacy” (saving the phenomena), not truth about unobservables.
  • Pessimistic Meta-Induction: The argument that since past theories were wrong, current ones probably are too.

Applications

  • Philosophy of Science: The central debate in the field.
  • Science Policy: Should we fund research into unobservables (like string theory) if we aren’t sure they are “real”?

Criticism and Limitations

  • Underdetermination: Multiple theories can fit the same data. How do we know which one is the “real” one?
  • History of Science: The history of science is a graveyard of discarded theories (phlogiston, caloric, ether), which challenges the realist’s optimism.

Further Reading

  • The Scientific Image by Bas van Fraassen (Anti-realist classic)
  • Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth by Stathis Psillos
  • Realism and the Aim of Science by Karl Popper