Historical Inductions: New Cherries, Same Old Cherry-picking

References

• Baigrie, Brian S. 2007. Electricity and Magnetism: A Historical Perspective. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowler, Peter J. 1989. The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society. London: Athlone Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bulmer, Michael. 2003. Francis Galton: Pioneer of Heredity and Biometry. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chakravartty, Anjan. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chakravartty, Anjan. 2008. “What You Don't Know Can't Hurt You: Realism and the Unconceived.” Philosophical Studies 137: 149–158. doi: 10.1007/s11098-007-9173-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, I. Bernard. 1985. Revolution in Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coon, Dennis, and John O. Mitterer. 2013. Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior. 14th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Devitt, Michael. 2011. “Are Unconceived Alternatives a Problem for Scientific Realism?” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42: 285–293. doi: 10.1007/s10838-011-9166-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dicken, Paul. 2013. “Normativity, the Base-rate Fallacy, and Some Problems for Retail Realism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44: 563–570. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dienes, Zoltan. 2011. “Bayesian Versus Orthodox Statistics: Which Side Are You on?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 274–290. doi: 10.1177/1745691611406920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doppelt, Gerald. 2007. “Reconstructing Scientific Realism to Rebut the Pessimistic Meta-induction.” Philosophy of Science 74: 96–118. doi: 10.1086/520685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enfield, Patrick. 2008. “Review of P. Kyle Stanford, Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59: 881–895. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axn042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahrbach, Ludwig. 2011. “How the Growth of Science Ends Theory Change.” Synthese 180: 139–155. doi: 10.1007/s11229-009-9602-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahrbach, Ludwig. Forthcoming. “ Scientific Revolutions and the Explosion of Scientific Evidence.” PhilSci-Archive. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11170.
   Google Scholar
• Fine, Arthur. 2008. “Epistemic Instrumentalism, Exceeding Our Grasp.” Philosophical Studies 137: 135–139. doi: 10.1007/s11098-007-9171-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forber, Patrick. 2008. “Forever Beyond Our Grasp? Review of P. Kyle Stanford (2006), Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives.” Biology and Philosophy 23: 135–141. doi: 10.1007/s10539-007-9074-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frost-Arnold, Greg. 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
• Frost-Arnold, Greg. 2011. “From the Pessimistic Induction to Semantic Antirealism.” Philosophy of Science 78: 1131–1142. doi: 10.1086/662265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2008. “Recurrent Transient Underdetermination and the Glass Half Full.” Philosophical Studies 137: 141–148. doi: 10.1007/s11098-007-9172-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2011. “Induction, Samples, and Kinds.” In Carving Nature at Its Joints: Natural Kinds in Metaphysics and Science, edited by Joseph K. Campbell, Michael O'Rourke, and Matthew H. Slater, 33–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Govier, Trudy. 2010. A Practical Study of Argument. 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Harper, Peter S. 2008. A Short History of Medical Genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Henley, Kenneth. 2014. “Motivated Reasoning, Group Identification, and Representative Democracy.” In Philosophical Perspectives on Democracy in the 21st Century, edited by Ann E. Cudd and Sally J. Scholz, 219–228. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, Monte, and Catherine Wilson. 2007. “Lucretius and the History of Science.” In The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius, edited by Stuart Gillespie and Philip Hardie, 131–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laudan, Larry. 1981. “A Confutation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 48: 19–48. doi: 10.1086/288975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipton, Peter. 2005. “The Medawar Lecture 2004: The Truth about Science.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 1259–1269. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1660
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons, Timothy D. 2002. “Scientific Realism and the Pessimistic Meta-Modus Tollens.” In Recent Themes in the Philosophy of Science: Scientific Realism and Commonsense, edited by Steve Clarke and Timothy D. Lyons, 63–90. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Magnus, P. D. 2006. “What's New about the New Induction?” Synthese 148: 295–301. doi: 10.1007/s11229-004-6223-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnus, P. D. 2010. “Inductions, Red Herrings, and the Best Explanation for the Mixed Record of Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61: 803–819. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axq004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo, Deborah G. 1996. Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, Moti. 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, Moti. 2013a. “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
• Mizrahi, Moti. 2013b. “The Argument from Underconsideration and Relative Realism.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 27: 393–407. doi: 10.1080/02698595.2013.868183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, Mark. 2010. “The No-miracles Argument, Reliabilism, and a Methodological Version of the Generality Problem.” Synthese 177: 111–138. doi: 10.1007/s11229-009-9642-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okasha, Samir. 2002. “Underdetermination, Holism, and the Theory/Data Distinction.” Philosophical Quarterly 52: 303–319. doi: 10.1111/1467-9213.00270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, Seungbae. 2011. “A Confutation of the Pessimistic Induction.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42: 75–84. doi: 10.1007/s10838-010-9130-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, Seungbae. 2014. “A Pessimistic Induction against Scientific Antirealism.” Organon F 21: 3–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Psillos, Stathis. 2006. “Thinking about the Ultimate Argument for Realism.” In Rationality and Reality: Conversations with Alan Musgrave, edited by Colin Cheyne and John Worrall, 133–156. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, Hilary. 1975. Mathematics, Matter and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ruhmkorff, Samuel. 2011. “Some Difficulties for the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives.” Philosophy of Science 78: 875–886. doi: 10.1086/662273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saatsi, Juha. 2005. “On the Pessimistic Induction and Two Fallacies.” Philosophy of Science 72: 1088–1098. doi: 10.1086/508959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmon, Merrilee H. 2013. Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Sloan, Phillip. 2014. “The Concept of Evolution to 1872.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. Summer 2014 edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/evolution-to-1872.
   Google Scholar
• Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tobias, Edward S., Michael Connor, and Malcolm Ferguson-Smith. 2011. Essential Medical Genetics. 6th ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Vickers, Peter. 2012. “Historical Magic in Old Quantum Theory?” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2: 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s13194-010-0010-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers, Peter. 2013. “A Confrontation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 80: 189–211. doi: 10.1086/670297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Votsis, Ioannis. 2007. “Review of Kyle Stanford's Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21: 103–106. doi: 10.1080/02698590701306048
   Google Scholar
• Willink, Robin. 2013. Measurement Uncertainty and Probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Worrall, John. 2011. “The No Miracles Intuition and the No Miracles Argument.” In Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation, edited by Dennis Dieks, Wenceslao J. Gonzalez, Stephan Hartmann, Thomas Uebel, and Marcel Weber, 11–22. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, K. Brad. 2013. “The Pessimistic Induction and the Exponential Growth of Science Reassessed.” Synthese 190: 4321–4330. doi: 10.1007/s11229-013-0276-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar