@article{0966962d470b4094baeb283bcb1eedb4,
title = "A Methodological Argument Against Scientific Realism",
abstract = "First, I identify a methodological thesis associated with scientific realism. This has different variants, but each concerns the reliability of scientific methods in connection with acquiring, or approaching, truth or approximate truth. Second, I show how this thesis bears on what scientists should do when considering new theories that significantly contradict older theories. Third, I explore how vulnerable scientific realism is to a reductio ad absurdum as a result. Finally, I consider which variants of the methodological thesis are the most defensible in light of the earlier findings.",
keywords = "Confirmation, Historical evidence, Scientific method, Scientific realism, Theory change",
author = "ROWBOTTOM, {Darrell Patrick}",
note = "This paper is based on talks given at Cambridge University{\textquoteright}s Philosophy of Science Seminar and Durham University{\textquoteright}s Institute of Advanced Study. I am grateful to various audience members for comments, and particularly Robin Hendry, Milena Ivanova, Brian Pitts, and Jacob Stegenga. I am greatly indebted to Simon Goldstein and Jiji Zhang for insightful comments on drafts of the paper. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019, Springer Nature B.V. Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",
year = "2021",
month = mar,
doi = "10.1007/s11229-019-02197-7",
language = "English",
volume = "198",
pages = "2153--2167",
journal = "Synthese",
issn = "0039-7857",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",
}