The Argument from Underconsideration and Relative Realism

References

• Aronson, J. L. 1990. “Verisimilitude and Type Hierarchies.” Philosophical Topics 18: 5–28. doi: 10.5840/philtopics19901821
   Google Scholar
• Aronson, J. L., R. Harré, and E. C. Way. 1994. Realism Rescued: How Scientific Progress is Possible. London: Duckworth.
   Google Scholar
• Baxby, D. 1999. “Edward Jenner's Inquiry: A Bicentenary Analysis.” Vaccine 17: 301–307. doi: 10.1016/S0264-410X(98)00207-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird, A. 2007. “What Is Scientific Progress?” Noûs 41: 64–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00638.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, R. N. 1983. “On the Current Status of the Issue of Scientific Realism.” Erkenntnis 19: 45–90. doi: 10.1007/BF00174775
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, R. N. 1990. “Realism, Approximate Truth and Philosophical Method.” In Scientific Theories, edited by C. W. Savage, 355–391. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chakravartty, A. 2010. “Truth and Representation in Science: Two Inspirations from Art.” In Beyond Mimesis and Convention: Representation in Art and Science, edited by R. Frigg and M. Hunter, 33–50. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chakravartty, A. 2011. “Scientific Realism.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/scientific-realism.
   Google Scholar
• Dicken, P. 2009. “Constructive Empiricism and the Vices of Voluntarism.” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17: 189–201. doi: 10.1080/09672550902794421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doppelt, G. 2002. “Review of S. Psillos, Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth.” Philosophical Review 111: 142–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenner, F., D. A. Henderson, I. Arita, Z. Ježek, and I. D. Ladnyi. 1988. Smallpox and Its Eradication. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/39485/1/9241561106.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• French, S., and H. Kamminga, eds. 1993. Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics: Essays in Honour of Heinz Post. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Frost-Arnold, G. 2010. “The No-miracles Argument for Realism: Inference to an Unacceptable Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 77: 35–58. doi: 10.1086/650207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaukroger, S. 2006. The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1210–1685. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jenner, E. 1800. An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolae Vaccinae, a Disease Discovered in Some of the Western Counties of England, Particularly Gloucestershire, and Known by the Name of the Cow Pox. 2nd ed. London: Sampson Low.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, S. H. E. 2008. “Immunology's Foundation: The 100-year Anniversary of the Nobel Prize to Paul Ehrlich and Elie Metchnikoff.” Nature Immunology 9: 705–712. doi: 10.1038/ni0708-705
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khalifa, K. 2010. “Default Privilege and Bad Lots: Underconsideration and Explanatory Inference.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24: 91–105. doi: 10.1080/02698590903467135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. 2002. “Scientific Knowledge.” In The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, edited by P. K. Moser, 385–407. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuipers, T. A. F. 2009. “Comparative Realism as the Best Response to Antirealism.” In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress, edited by C. Glymour, W. Wei, and D. Westerståhl, 221–250. London: King's College Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kvanvig, J. 2003. The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 1984. Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leplin, J. 1981. “Truth and Scientific Progress.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 12: 269–291. doi: 10.1016/0039-3681(81)90018-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leplin, J. 1997. A Novel Defense of Scientific Realism. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lipton, P. 1993. “Is the Best Good Enough?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 93: 89–104.
   Google Scholar
• Lipton, P. 2000. “Tracking Track Records.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 74: 179–205.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, D. W. 1974. “Popper's Qualitative Theory of Verisimilitude.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 166–177. doi: 10.1093/bjps/25.2.166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, M. 2012. “Why the Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism Ultimately Fails.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43: 132–138. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, M. 2013. “The Pessimistic Induction: A Bad Argument Gone Too Far.” Synthese 190: 3209–3226. doi: 10.1007/s11229-012-0138-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niiniluoto, I. 1987. Truthlikeness. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Niiniluoto, I. 1998. “Verisimilitude: The Third Period.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49: 1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Park, S. 2011. “A Confutation of the Pessimistic Induction.” Journal of General Philosophy of Science 42: 75–84. doi: 10.1007/s10838-010-9130-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. 1972. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. 4th ed. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Post, H. R. 1971. “Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics: In Praise of Conservative Induction.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2: 213–255. doi: 10.1016/0039-3681(71)90042-2
   Google Scholar
• Psillos, S. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Psillos, S. 2006. “Thinking about the Ultimate Argument for Realism.” In Rationality and Reality: Conversations with Alan Musgrave, edited by C. Cheyne and J. Worrall, 133–156. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Psillos, S. 2007. “Putting a Bridle on Irrationality: An Appraisal of van Fraassen's New Epistemology.” In Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances with a Reply by Bas C. van Fraassen, edited by B. Monton, 134–164. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rescher, N. 1990. A Useful Inheritance: Evolutionary Aspects of the Theory of Knowledge. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. 1979. Models of Thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, P. 1998. “Approximate Truth and Dynamical Theories.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49: 253–277. doi: 10.1093/bjps/49.2.253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tichý, P. 1974. “On Popper's Definitions of Verisimilitude.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 155–160. doi: 10.1093/bjps/25.2.155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Fraassen, B. C. 1980. The Scientific Image. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Fraassen, B. C. 1983. “Calibration: A Frequency Justification for Personal Probability.” In Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, edited by R. S. Cohen and L. Laudan, 295–319. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• van Fraassen, B. C. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weston, T. 1992. “Approximate Truth and Scientific Realism.” Philosophy of Science 59: 53–74. doi: 10.1086/289654
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wray, K. B. 2007. “A Selectionist Explanation for the Success and Failures of Science.” Erkenntnis 67: 81–89. doi: 10.1007/s10670-007-9046-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wray, K. B. 2008. “The Argument from Underconsideration as Grounds for Anti-realism: A Defence.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22: 317–326. doi: 10.1080/02698590802567399
   Google Scholar
• Wray, K. B. 2010. “Selection and Predictive Success.” Erkenntnis 72: 365–377. doi: 10.1007/s10670-009-9206-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wray, K. B. 2012. “Epistemic Privilege and the Success of Science.” Noûs 46: 375–385. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00793.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar