Introduction
Given its name, scientific realism seems to be the logical approach to perceiving science, as science itself is based on interpreting metaphysical reality and giving realistic claims. Despite this assumption, scientific realism has its opponents who support anti-realist ideas. This essay will defend the realist point of view by examining why consilient evidence justifies applying realism in science. Part 1 will examine the pessimistic induction as the argument against the validity of scientific realism. Part 2 will explain why pessimistic induction is irrelevant and how consilient evidence confirms the relevance of scientific realism.
Understanding Pessimistic Induction
One of the anti-realist ideas is the pessimistic induction. Pessimists believe that throughout history, all the scientific claims and theories that have been made have been rejected or refuted. According to this idea, no scientific thought or theory, however well-established it is, is final. Thus, they cannot be perceived as such (“Scientific Realism and Anti-Realism”). A lot of the explanations of the world that were made previously and that were once thought to be inviolable were denied later due to how science was developing.
In Chemistry, for example, there was a time when the existence of phlogiston was well-established, and the theories around it were widespread. However, as the revolution in chemistry took place, these theories fell out of use, and so did the idea of the existence of this element (“Scientific Realism and Anti-Realism”). Many basic laws of physics have been reconsidered numerous times throughout centuries as well. These examples, according to anti-realists, prove that one cannot rely on claims made by scientists due to the fact that their rebuttal is inevitable.
The Role of Consilient Evidence in Science
The pessimists’ idea can be refuted, however, by the fact that even though a lot of the previously made scientific assumptions have somehow been rejected, a lot of the basic concepts have stayed the same. No scientific field can be reinvented from zero each time; thus, each time a new concept appears, it is always based on or related to the most essential concepts in the area. These concepts typically do not change over time or change relatively insignificantly.
Thus, even though the scientific theory itself is not permanent and constantly suffers changes, it has certain pillars around which all new theories are built (“Scientific Realism and Anti-Realism”). Some examples are basic concepts such as atoms in physics or mole concepts in chemistry. The theories surrounding these concepts change as new theories appear, but the basis stays the same.
Consilient evidence, in turn, demonstrates that even though the approaches or techniques to examining certain phenomena can differ, the result is majorly the same. And if the result is the same or similar, then the idea that is being proved is based on reality. For instance, multiple techniques and approaches have been applied to examine dark matter. However, the outcome of the different kinds of investigation did not differ substantially (Allzén 155). This proves the consilience and its legitimacy in terms of scientific realism.
Conclusion
To conclude, realism is the most logical way of approaching science. Despite the pessimistic view that scientific concepts and ideas get refuted over time, the basic ideas remain the same in each scientific field. Moreover, it has been seen that different approaches to the same phenomena give similar results, which can serve as proof that those phenomena are, in fact, real.
Works Cited
Allzén, Simon. “Scientific Realism and Empirical Confirmation: A Puzzle.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 90, 2021, pp. 153-159.
“Scientific Realism and Anti-Realism.” YouTube, uploaded by Matthew J. Brown. 2022.