Scientific Realism in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Seven Sciences and History and Philosophy of Science
We report the results of a study that investigated the views of researchers working in seven scientific disciplines and in history and philosophy of science in regard to four hypothesized dimensions of scientific realism. Among other things, we found (i) that natural scientists tended to express mor...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Philosophy of science 2020-04, Vol.87 (2), p.336-364 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 364 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 336 |
| container_title | Philosophy of science |
| container_volume | 87 |
| creator | Beebe, James R. Dellsén, Finnur |
| description | We report the results of a study that investigated the views of researchers working in seven scientific disciplines and in history and philosophy of science in regard to four hypothesized dimensions of scientific realism. Among other things, we found (i) that natural scientists tended to express more strongly realist views than social scientists, (ii) that history and philosophy of science scholars tended to express more antirealist views than natural scientists, (iii) that van Fraassen’s characterization of scientific realism failed to cluster with more standard characterizations, and (iv) that those who endorsed the pessimistic induction were no more or less likely to endorse antirealism. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1086/707552 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1086_707552</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2390421836</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c312t-1cb5372fbea6855d0b806e4a83a3dbcfb62ac325bcd7d425b1351c194a6d45ca3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpF0F1LwzAUBuAgCtapvyGgeFfNR5Nm3o0xnTBQrKJ3JU1Sm9E1NWmF_nvrOvDqnIvnvAdeAC4xusVI8LsUpYyRIxBhRudxytPPYxAhRHEsSCJOwVkIW4QwFkhEYJspa5rOllbBVyNrG3bQNrCrDPywtb6Hiwaudq31VskaZl2vB-hKmJkf08D9rTIBykbDtQ2d88N-f6ls7YJrqwlP7ByclLIO5uIwZ-D9YfW2XMeb58en5WITK4pJF2NVMJqSsjCSC8Y0KgTiJpGCSqoLVRacSEUJK5ROdTJOTBlWeJ5IrhOmJJ2Bqym39e67N6HLt673zfgyJ3SOEoIF5aO6mZTyLgRvyrz1dif9kGOU__WYTz2O8HqCvarGEr5c600I_5kH9gvfTHEg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2390421836</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Scientific Realism in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Seven Sciences and History and Philosophy of Science</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Beebe, James R. ; Dellsén, Finnur</creator><creatorcontrib>Beebe, James R. ; Dellsén, Finnur</creatorcontrib><description>We report the results of a study that investigated the views of researchers working in seven scientific disciplines and in history and philosophy of science in regard to four hypothesized dimensions of scientific realism. Among other things, we found (i) that natural scientists tended to express more strongly realist views than social scientists, (ii) that history and philosophy of science scholars tended to express more antirealist views than natural scientists, (iii) that van Fraassen’s characterization of scientific realism failed to cluster with more standard characterizations, and (iv) that those who endorsed the pessimistic induction were no more or less likely to endorse antirealism.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-8248</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1539-767X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1086/707552</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: The University of Chicago Press</publisher><subject>Induction ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of science ; Realism ; Scientists</subject><ispartof>Philosophy of science, 2020-04, Vol.87 (2), p.336-364</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2020 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright University of Chicago, acting through its Press Apr 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c312t-1cb5372fbea6855d0b806e4a83a3dbcfb62ac325bcd7d425b1351c194a6d45ca3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c312t-1cb5372fbea6855d0b806e4a83a3dbcfb62ac325bcd7d425b1351c194a6d45ca3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Beebe, James R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dellsén, Finnur</creatorcontrib><title>Scientific Realism in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Seven Sciences and History and Philosophy of Science</title><title>Philosophy of science</title><description>We report the results of a study that investigated the views of researchers working in seven scientific disciplines and in history and philosophy of science in regard to four hypothesized dimensions of scientific realism. Among other things, we found (i) that natural scientists tended to express more strongly realist views than social scientists, (ii) that history and philosophy of science scholars tended to express more antirealist views than natural scientists, (iii) that van Fraassen’s characterization of scientific realism failed to cluster with more standard characterizations, and (iv) that those who endorsed the pessimistic induction were no more or less likely to endorse antirealism.</description><subject>Induction</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of science</subject><subject>Realism</subject><subject>Scientists</subject><issn>0031-8248</issn><issn>1539-767X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpF0F1LwzAUBuAgCtapvyGgeFfNR5Nm3o0xnTBQrKJ3JU1Sm9E1NWmF_nvrOvDqnIvnvAdeAC4xusVI8LsUpYyRIxBhRudxytPPYxAhRHEsSCJOwVkIW4QwFkhEYJspa5rOllbBVyNrG3bQNrCrDPywtb6Hiwaudq31VskaZl2vB-hKmJkf08D9rTIBykbDtQ2d88N-f6ls7YJrqwlP7ByclLIO5uIwZ-D9YfW2XMeb58en5WITK4pJF2NVMJqSsjCSC8Y0KgTiJpGCSqoLVRacSEUJK5ROdTJOTBlWeJ5IrhOmJJ2Bqym39e67N6HLt673zfgyJ3SOEoIF5aO6mZTyLgRvyrz1dif9kGOU__WYTz2O8HqCvarGEr5c600I_5kH9gvfTHEg</recordid><startdate>20200401</startdate><enddate>20200401</enddate><creator>Beebe, James R.</creator><creator>Dellsén, Finnur</creator><general>The University of Chicago Press</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200401</creationdate><title>Scientific Realism in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Seven Sciences and History and Philosophy of Science</title><author>Beebe, James R. ; Dellsén, Finnur</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c312t-1cb5372fbea6855d0b806e4a83a3dbcfb62ac325bcd7d425b1351c194a6d45ca3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Induction</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of science</topic><topic>Realism</topic><topic>Scientists</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Beebe, James R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dellsén, Finnur</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Philosophy of science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Beebe, James R.</au><au>Dellsén, Finnur</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Scientific Realism in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Seven Sciences and History and Philosophy of Science</atitle><jtitle>Philosophy of science</jtitle><date>2020-04-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>87</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>336</spage><epage>364</epage><pages>336-364</pages><issn>0031-8248</issn><eissn>1539-767X</eissn><abstract>We report the results of a study that investigated the views of researchers working in seven scientific disciplines and in history and philosophy of science in regard to four hypothesized dimensions of scientific realism. Among other things, we found (i) that natural scientists tended to express more strongly realist views than social scientists, (ii) that history and philosophy of science scholars tended to express more antirealist views than natural scientists, (iii) that van Fraassen’s characterization of scientific realism failed to cluster with more standard characterizations, and (iv) that those who endorsed the pessimistic induction were no more or less likely to endorse antirealism.</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>The University of Chicago Press</pub><doi>10.1086/707552</doi><tpages>29</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0031-8248 |
| ispartof | Philosophy of science, 2020-04, Vol.87 (2), p.336-364 |
| issn | 0031-8248 1539-767X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1086_707552 |
| source | Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
| subjects | Induction Philosophy Philosophy of science Realism Scientists |
| title | Scientific Realism in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Seven Sciences and History and Philosophy of Science |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T00%3A11%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Scientific%20Realism%20in%20the%20Wild:%20An%20Empirical%20Study%20of%20Seven%20Sciences%20and%20History%20and%20Philosophy%20of%20Science&rft.jtitle=Philosophy%20of%20science&rft.au=Beebe,%20James%20R.&rft.date=2020-04-01&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=336&rft.epage=364&rft.pages=336-364&rft.issn=0031-8248&rft.eissn=1539-767X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1086/707552&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2390421836%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2390421836&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |