Mario Alai

This paper explains how the "no miracles" argument escapes the objection of committing the base-rate fallacy, and it shows how the argument must be refined in order to rebut various other objections The “no miracle" argument (NMA) is generally considered the “ultimate” argument for scientific realism (Musgrave 1988). However, its roughest formulations (e.g.: “The success of science would be a miracle unless scientific theories were true”; “the only non-miraculous explanation of the success of science is scientific realism”) are as vague as open to many criticisms. Therefore, realists have already introduced several refinements to fend the objections which in fact have been raised. Some antirealists even concluded that this attempt to immunize it from objections is an endless and hopeless process, but I maintain that this is not the case, since there is at least one effective and undefeated form of the NMA. To show this, I begin by briefly discussing four refinements that have already been introduced (§ 2). Next, I introduce the “base-rate fallacy” objection, which until now has not received sufficient attention from realists (§ 3). Before answering it, I need to present yet another objection and the further refinement it calls for (§ 4). In § 5 I argue that the truth-conduciveness of the scientific method warrants a nonzero prior probability to hypotheses, and in § 6 I explain that for this reason the NMA avoids the base-rate fallacy. Finally, in § 7, I briefly reply to some further objections.

In an earlier article on this journal I argued that the problem of empirical underdetermination can for the largest part be solved by theoretical virtues, and for the remaining part it can be tolerated. Here I confront two further challenges to scientific realism based on underdetermination. First, there are four classes of theories which may seem to be underdetermined even by theoretical virtues. Concerning them I argue that (i) theories produced by trivial permutations and (ii) “equivalent descriptions” are compatible with the truth of standard theories; instead (iii) “as if” versions of standard theories are much worse from the point of view of theoretical virtues; finally (iv) mathematically intertranslatable theories either may become empirically decidable in the future, or can be discriminated by theoretical virtues, or realists may simply plead ignorance about their claims. Secondly, I consider Stanford’s underdetermination with respect unconceived alternatives, arguing that it essentially relies on the pessimistic meta-induction from the falsity of all past theories. Therefore, it can be resisted by (a) considering the radical advancement of present with respect to past science, and (b) arguing with selective realism that past successful theories, even if false, always included some true components.

This is an attempt to sort out what is it that makes many of us uncomfortable with the perdurantist solution to the problem of change. Lewis argues that only perdurantism can reconcile change with persistence over time, while neither presentism nor endurantism can. So, first, I defend the endurantist solution to the problem of change, by arguing that what is relative to time are not properties, but their possession. Second, I explore the anti-perdurantist strategy of arguing that Lewis cannot solve the problem of change, for he cannot account for how some properties are possessed by objects in time. However, I argue that this strategy fails, for if by saying that objects in time can have properties ‘timelessly’ we mean “at no particular time” and “tenselessly”, only objects outside time can have properties in that way; but if we mean “for all the time they exist”, or “essentially”, perdurantists can account for this. Finally, I argue that actually perdurantism cannot solve the problem, but for different reasons: for either it sweeps the problem under the carpet, denying change, and in general subverting our conceptual scheme in a dangerous way, or it becomes equivalent to the endurantist picture that properties are had at times. Nor perdurantism is justified by the Relativity Theory or the B-theory of time, because while endurantism is certainly comfortable with presentism, it need not be committed to it; and even if it were, presentism need not be refuted by the Relativity Theory.

Evandro Agazzi’s volume Scientific Objectivity and its Contexts is here introduced. First, the genesis and the content of the book are outlined. Secondly, an overview of Agazzi’s philosophy of science is provided. Its main roots are epistemological realism in the Aristotelian/scholastic tradition, and contemporary science-oriented epistemology, especially in Logical Empiricism. As a result, Agazzi’s thought is nicely balanced between empiricism and rationalism, it avoids gnoseologistic dualism by stressing the intentionality of knowledge, and it insists on the operational and referential character of science. Finally, an account is given of Agazzi’s view of the origin and nature of scientific objects, which allows to understand how his sophisticated and “perspectival” realism differs both from naïve realism and constructivism.

The empirical underdetermination of theories is a philosophical problem which until the last century has not seriously troubled actual science. The reason is that confirmation does not depend only on empirical consequences, and theoretical virtues allow to choose among empirically equivalent theories. Moreover, I argue that the theories selected in this way are not just pragmatically or aesthetically better, but more probably (and/or largely) true. At present in quantum mechanics not even theoretical virtues allow to choose among many competing theories and interpretations, but this is because none of them possess those virtues to a sufficient degree. However, first, we can hope for some future advancement (new empirical tests, or new theories). Second, even if no further progress came forth, all the most credited competitors agree on a substantial core of theoretical assumptions. Therefore underdetermination does not show that we cannot be realist on unobservable entities in general, but at most that in particular fields our inquiry may encounter some de facto limits.

The scientific realism-antirealism debate concerns theories in general. However, as soon as the discussion draws arguments from the historical development of science, some issues emerge concerning how we should regard current theories in particular, as opposed to past and future ones. Positions here range between two extremes: on the one hand a radical version of the pessimistic meta-induction (PMI) would have it that since all past theories older than 100 - 150 years have been proven radically false and rejected , all present and future theories will be rejected within 100-150 year, and there can be no truth in science (at most, empirical adequacy). On the opposite extreme blunt optimists like Doppelt (2007, 2011, 2014) or Park (2017a ... On treating differently....) hold that, given the astonishing qualitative and quantitative technical and methodological progress of research in the last century or so (Fahrbach 2011), current best theories are almost completely and exactly true, so that further progress, besides adding new knowledge, can at best correct minor details of present day theories: they will not be refuted, because they have a “unique status” in the history of their discipline, distinguishing them from other theories, since they “stand alone at the pinnacle of the entire field of inquiry” (Doppelt 2014, p. 285). But evidence is against both extremes: radical pessimism cannot explain why even the ancient and now rejected theories were predictively successful: some of their predictions were as precise as utterly unforeseen and unforeseeable, so that they couldn’t be gotten right except by a miracle. But an explanation of those successes is available, and it is that those theories had some true components which by themselves were sufficient to derive their predictions, and have actually been located by recent research. Therefore past theories were not completely false; hence, even the PMI cannot show that current theories are completely false. Again, radical pessimism cannot explain the rapidly increasing rate of success of science; which again, is plainly explained by the fact that the true components of older theories are typically preserved in current ones. On the other hand, it is a priory implausible that just now we have reached the “end of history” in scientific research, a sort of promised land of pure truths, or Peirce’s ideal limit of research, and that our science is infallible. We see the mistakes of past science, while we obviously cannot see those of present science, and this ingenerates the illusion that there are none. But we have seen the same illusion arising in the past, age after age, only to be deluded: in the 18th Century people thought Newton had definitely opened up for us God’s blueprint of the Universe. In 1874 Philipp von Jolly advised a young Max Planck against studying physics, because “In this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes”. In addition, we positively know that there are mistakes in current theories because even two of the most successful ones, quantum mechanics and relativity, are at variance with one another and are beset by unsolved riddles. No doubt contemporary science has made astonishing empirical and methodological progresses with respect to past science. But also in modern science vs. medieval science, etc. Nonetheless, even in the past empirical knowledge and scientific methodology had improved steadily: for instance, they had improved a lot from 1000 AD to 1700 AD, yet many wrong theories were still held at that date, and even thereafter. So, is hard to think that any improvement of our background empirical knowledge and methods can at some point make scientists practically infallible; and even more that this point has already been reached. Brad Wray (2016) pointed out that, just like at any time there are unconceived alternatives to the current theories, there are also unconceived methods (and instruments), by which those theories could be overthrown, like the discovery of the astronomical telescope in the helped overthrowing geocentrism, the discovery of the microscope jeopardized the theories of spontaneous generation, etc. Such new methods and instruments are produced all the time by the very progress of science, so the very advancements of contemporary science allows us to suppose that many will be discovered even in the next future, which will undermine today’s theories, opening the way to new revolutions. The arguments against both extremes are all sound, and beware, they are not mutually incompatible! Together, therefore, they drive to a moderate intermediate position: current theories are partly true, in fact more (perhaps much more) largely true than past ones, yet they probably still include important false components which might be replaced by future revolutionary changes, more or less like Newton’s absolute space and time and gravitational theory were replaced by Einstein’s spacetime and by its curvature, or the dichotomy of matter and energy, still surviving in late 19th Century electromagnetism and statistical mechanics was replaced by the continuum of quantum mechanics and special relativity. Contrary to Kuhn’s view, revolutions and progress go hand in hand. Of course current science stands on much firmer grounds than pre-20th Century science, yet there are continuities which justify some inductive inferences from past to present and future: we are still humans, basically using the same cognitive tool, reason and the five senses, and subject to the same cognitive limits; scientific method is basically the same; above all, Nature is still very complex, in fact unfathomably complex: it works in different ways at different scales or different locations in space or time. For instance, it is (roughly) deterministic at large scales, but indeterministic at small scales; the physical laws today are probably different from those a few instants after the Big Bang; entropy increases over time in the universe as a whole, but it may decrease in local areas or over short time spans; etc. (Alai 2017, 3282). Every great advancement in science has shown us unsuspected deeper and more basic layers of the structure of Nature, and we don’t know how many of those still lie ahead. Any of those discoveries brought out some basic mistake in our understanding of some of nature’s mechanisms, so spurred some kind of revolution. Induction is a correct inference pattern in general, and it may correctly be applied to past science, on condition of taking a correct image of past science as a premise. If this is done, the conclusion is a more balanced judgment of current and future theories, neither completely pessimistic nor implausibly optimistic. What we observe in past science is that (1) every single theory has been found to be mistaken and replaced; yet (2) mistaken but predictively successful theories had some true components (those essential to deriving their successful predictions); (3) those components were typically preserved in replacing theories, which therefore were more largely true. Since there is no reason to think that this trend is still on, we should conclude that current theories are more largely true than earlier ones, but still partly false. Even if not all the content of current theories exceeding old ones is probably true and will be preserved in the future, still we can appreciate one by one the new pieces of information and the corrections brought up by current theories, and we see they are really many. However, we cannot tell what in our theories is the percent of truth vs. falsity. A fortiori, therefore, we cannot tell how much more largely true than past theories they are, i.e. measure the difference in the respective percents of truth. Even less, of course, can we tell what percent of the whole truth on its particular subject a theory has gotten, since we don’t know what the whole truth is. It might be suggested that if the assumptions which were essential in deriving novel successful predictions are most probably true, as selectivists believe, then we should be able to discriminate what is true and what is false in our theories. However, this is not the case for two reasons. First, even assumptions which have not been so essentially employed might be true: only, we don’t have the acid test of it. Second, essential hypotheses typically appear in the derivation of novel predictions as undistinguished parts of stronger hypotheses which play the official role in the derivation; the latter are not essential, because the prediction might equally well have been derived by their essential part, even if this typically goes unnoticed. Furthermore, it can be argued that the essential content of an hypotheses often can be distinguished from its non-essential content only negatively, retrospectively and in hindsight (Alai 2021). That is, suppose H is an assumption which we now believe to be true because we believe was used essentially in deriving a successful prediction. If in the future we discover that is false, that will be sign that it had not actually been essential, and our discovery will also show which part H’ of H is wrong, hence, not essential. This however will not yet guarantee that all of the remaining part H” was essential and is true. Therefore, looking at current theories, we are entitled to believe that there is some truth in them, and more precisely that there is some truth in some hypotheses which appear to have been essential to certain novel predictions; however, we cannot be certain of what exactly is true in them. If we would, that would make our heuristics much easier than they are, for in face of any experimental failure of a theory we would know precisely and in advance which parts of it should not be modified and substituted. A further difficulty is that here my talk of “parts” of theories and hypotheses is vague and rather metaphorical, and there may be different ways (none easy, anyway) to rephrase it literally. So, this adds uncertainty to our outlook. For instance, suppose we formalize theories as collections of sentences, as in the classical “statement view”: then, it might be the case that 95% of the empirical atomic sentences of T are correct, that 50% of its middle-level theoretical atomic sentences are correct, but that 90% of the few very basic atomic theoretical sentences are wrong. If so, it might be matter of taste whether to call T largely true or largely false, but it would be certainly correct to call a “revolution” the substitution of T by a theory T’ which preserved most of the empirical and middle-level theoretical sentences of T while substituting 90% of its very basic theoretical sentences. Now, nothing allows us to exclude that a number of our best theories today is in a position like T. From this and the previous arguments it follows that it cannot be excluded, and in fact it is rather probable that our science, successful and largely true as it is, will undergo a number of revolutions in the future.

The debate between scientific realists and antirealists has been going on for a long time, and neither side seems to prevail. To resist the objections raised by antirealists, a long series of versions of realism have been proposed, but none seems to work across the board. Therefore, various critics suggested that supporters and adversaries of realism speak past each other, and the debate is at a stalemate. In this paper, written in honour of Fabio Minazzi, I examine and criticize some recent proposals to deflate or radically change the dispute: deflationism, radical naturalism and particularism: none of them, I argue, is satisfactory, nor actually required. I suggest, instead, that the debate is in better shape than it might seem, having already made significant progresses and converged on certain conclusions.

Frege captures the intuitive meaning and truth-value of some empty sentences, and Russell of some others; but many such sentences are not satisfactorily analyzed by either one. A contemporary approach in the footsteps of these authors suggests how to preserve the truth-value of all such sentences, but not their actual meaning. In my view Meinong’s important lesson is that mention of nonexistent objects cannot be eliminated from a number of commonsensical platitudes without changing their meaning. Yet, in spite of his partially misleading language (that prompted Russell’s criticisms), I think he is not actually committed to an ontology nonexistent objects, but only of thoughts or concepts, as Russell, or representations, as Husserl.

This article examines whether people share the Gettier intuition (viz. that someone who has a true justified belief that p may nonetheless fail to know that p) in 24 sites, located in 23 countries (counting Hong Kong as a distinct country) and across 17 languages. We also consider the possible influence of gender and personality on this intuition with a very large sample size. Finally, we examine whether the Gettier intuition varies across people as a function of their disposition to engage in “reflective” thinking.

Strong predictivism, the idea that novel predictions per se confirm theories more than accommodations, is based on a “no miracle” argument from novel predictions to the truth of theories (NMAT). Eric Barnes rejects both: he reconstructs the NMAT as seeking an explanation for the entailment relation between a theory and its novel consequences, and argues that it involves a fallacious application of Occam’s razor. However, he accepts a no miracle argument for the truth of background beliefs (NMABB): scientists endorsed a successful theory because they were guided by largely true background beliefs. This in turn raises the probability that the theory is true; so Barnes embraces a form of weak predictivism, according to which predictions are only indirectly relevant to confirmation. To Barnes I reply that we should also explain how the successful theory was constructed, not just endorsed; background beliefs are not enough to explain success, scientific method must also be considered; Barnes can account for some measure of confirmation of our theories, but not for the practical certainty conferred to them by some astonishing predictions; true background beliefs and reliability by themselves cannot explain novel success, the truth of theories is also required. Hence, the NMAT is sound, and strong predictivism is right. In fact, Barnes misinterprets the NMAT, which does not involve Occam’s razor, takes as explanandum the building of a theory which turned out to predict surprising facts, and successfully concludes that the theory is true. This accounts for the practically certain confirmation of our most successful theories, in accordance with strong predictivism.

Gegen bestimmte positivistische und neopositivistische Einschränkungen, die immer noch in unserer Gesellschaft verankert sind, argumentiert Agazzi, dass die Erkenntnis des Unsichtbaren nicht nur in der Wissenschaft, sondern auch in der Metaphysik, in der Moral, in der Ästhetik und in anderen Bereichen, in gewissem Sinne auch in der Religion, möglich sei. Das Buch untersucht zudem viele Beispiele dieses Wissens und untersucht nicht nur die großen Klassiker der Philosophie, sondern auch verschiedene unvergängliche Meisterwerke der Kunst, Musik und Literatur. Es ist nicht nur eine erkenntnistheoretische Abhandlung, sondern ein Buch der Philosophie im umfassendsten und traditionellsten Sinne, denn es behandelt Wissen nicht nur um seiner selbst willen, sondern auch als Leitfaden für Kultur, Moral, Glück und den Sinn des Lebens. Damit liefert es auch einige wichtige Anregungen, wie wir unserer krisenhaften Zeit und einer ungewissen Zukunft begegnen können. Trotz Agazzis sprichwörtlicher Strenge und Klarheit ist sein Projekt so bedeutsam und anspruchsvoll, dass ich hier bestimmte Punkte diskutiere, welche eine weitere Erläuterung und Argumentation verdienen.

Against certain positivistic and neopositivistic strictures still rooted in our society, Agazzi argues that knowing the invisible is possible, not just in science, but also in metaphysics, in morals, in aesthetics, and in other areas, including, in a sense, religion. The book also examines many examples of such knowledge, surveying not only the great classics of philosophy, but various immortal masterpieces of art, music and literature. It is not just a treatise in epistemology, but a book of philosophy in the most complete and traditional sense, for it discusses knowledge not only for its own sake, but also as a guide to culture, morality, happiness and to the sense of life. Thus, it also provides some important suggestions on how to face our time of crisis and an uncertain future. Despite Agazzi’s proverbial rigor and clarity, his project is so momentous and demanding that I discuss certain points which might deserve further explication and argumentation.

Great scholars in philosophy possess a keen analytical mind, excel in logical reasoning, and exhibit meticulous attention to detail. They rigorously define terms, avoiding ambiguities and errors. Originality and the willingness to challenge conventions are their hallmarks. They make significant contributions across various philosophical fields. They transparently address the exact aim of their research, and what it is not. Finally, they anticipate the impact of their theories on the current literature, and how such an impact should blossom across the future generations. In this respect, great philosophers address open problems and propose big questions for the foreseeable research efforts of those who will follow. Mario Alai embodies the qualities of a great scholar in philosophy, and the various essays in this volume are an evidence to that. It is challenging to condense a lifetime of research in one book. However, the Editors of the present volume’s aim was to face this challenge, to make a collection dedicated to Mario Alai’s work not only possible but, as metaphysicians would say, actual. The book attempts to bring together the reflections of three different generations of scholars - i.e., mentors, colleagues, and students - on Alai’s thought. Viewed from this perspective, the extensive and valuable contributions that follow, crafted in honor of Mario Alai and his scholarly endeavors, come as no surprise. All the chapters focus on a theme that was very dear to the philosophical curiosity of Mario Alai. Moreover, in engaging with these different topics, the plethora of contributions gives us a sense of the work by Alai. To make sense of the different contributions as a unified enterprise, this volume is organized into three sections, which seek to gather writings that revolve around Mario’s most substantial contributions, while elucidating their contemporary significance in the global discourse. Moreover, it endeavors to offer precious insights into the origins and development of these contributions, as observed through Mario’s writings and responses. This represents a sort of closure of the theoretical circle, clearly showing how the work by Mario Alai has been appreciated through different generations, originating from his relation to his mentors, on the one hand, while also shedding new light on his students’ research interests, on the other. Editing such a wealth of material was, again, no small feat. Still, the taxonomy we have chosen for this book will assist readers in navigating the profound depths of Alai’s philosophical research. Consequently, the book is structured into the following three parts: 1. Realism in History of Philosophy, History of Science, and Metaphysics. 2. Scientific Realism. 3. Realism in Philosophy of Language, Epistemology, and Experimental Philosophy. Each contribution actively participates in a substantial conversation with Alai’s body of work, as a deep theoretical dialogue between the author and Mario. Consequently, it appeared fitting to let Alai conclude this conversation, with direct responses to these philosophy-provoking pieces in his honor. We shall refrain from further commentary on the works within this book and allow them to express their significance independently to appreciate the river of ideas flowing through Mario’s work1. Beyond their philosophical substance, they are a vivid testament to Alai’s enduring dedication and ongoing contributions, in different moments of his research life.

In the remainder of this article, we will disarm an important motivation for epistemic contextualism and interest-relative invariantism. We will accomplish this by presenting a stringent test of whether there is a stakes effect on ordinary knowledge ascription. Having shown that, even on a stringent way of testing, stakes fail to impact ordinary knowledge ascription, we will conclude that we should take another look at classical invariantism. Here is how we will proceed. Section 1 lays out some limitations of previous research on stakes. Section 2 presents our study and concludes that there is little evidence for a substantial stakes effect. Section 3 responds to objections. The conclusion clears the way for classical invariantism.

This article examines whether people share the Gettier intuition (viz. that someone who has a true justified belief that p may nonetheless fail to know that p) in 24 sites, located in 23 countries (counting Hong-Kong as a distinct country) and across 17 languages. We also consider the possible influence of gender and personality on this intuition with a very large sample size. Finally, we examine whether the Gettier intuition varies across people as a function of their disposition to engage in “reflective” thinking.

This article examines whether people share the Gettier intuition (viz. that someone who has a true justified belief that p may nonetheless fail to know that p) in 24 sites, located in 23 countries (counting Hong Kong as a distinct country) and across 17 languages. We also consider the possible influence of gender and personality on this intuition with a very large sample size. Finally, we examine whether the Gettier intuition varies across people as a function of their disposition to engage in “reflective” thinking.

Philosophers have long debated whether, if determinism is true, we should hold people morally responsible for their actions since in a deterministic universe, people are arguably not the ultimate source of their actions nor could they have done otherwise if initial conditions and the laws of nature are held fixed. To reveal how non-philosophers ordinarily reason about the conditions for free will, we conducted a cross-cultural and cross-linguistic survey (N = 5,268) spanning twenty countries and sixteen languages. Overall, participants tended to ascribe moral responsibility whether the perpetrator lacked sourcehood or alternate possibilities. However, for American, European, and Middle Eastern participants, being the ultimate source of one’s actions promoted perceptions of free will and control as well as ascriptions of blame and punishment. By contrast, being the source of one’s actions was not particularly salient to Asian participants. Finally, across cultures, participants exhibiting greater cognitive reflection were more likely to view free will as incompatible with causal determinism. We discuss these findings in light of documented cultural differences in the tendency toward dispositional versus situational attributions.

Since at least Hume and Kant, philosophers working on the nature of aesthetic judgment have generally agreed that common sense does not treat aesthetic judgments in the same way as typical expressions of subjective preferences—rather, it endows them with intersubjective validity, the property of being right or wrong regardless of disagreement. Moreover, this apparent intersubjective validity has been taken to constitute one of the main explananda for philosophical accounts of aesthetic judgment. But is it really the case that most people spontaneously treat aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity? In this paper, we report the results of a cross‐cultural study with over 2,000 respondents spanning 19 countries. Despite significant geographical variations, these results suggest that most people do not treat their own aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for theories of aesthetic judgment and the purpose of aesthetics in general.

The notion of a hypothesis being deployed essentially in the derivation of a novel prediction plays a key role in the deployment realist reply to Laudan’s and Lyon’s attacks to the No Miracle Argument. However Lyons criticized Psillos’ criterion of essentiality, urging deployment realists to abandon this requirement altogether and accept as true all the assumptions actually deployed in novel predictions. But since many false assumptions were actually deployed in novel predictions, he concludes that the “no miracle argument” and deployment realism fail. I reply that the essentiality condition is required by Occam’s razor, and a “no miracle argument” deprived of that condition is a straw man. While Lyons’ criticisms of Psillos’ formalization of essentiality may be well taken, I suggest that there is a simpler formulation which escapes those criticisms and is enough to deal with the supposed counterexamples to the No Miracle Argument and deployment realism: a hypothesis is essential when it does not have a proper part (in Yablo’s sense) from which the prediction could also be derived. I then show how this condition rescues deployment realism from Lyons’ purported historical counterexamples. Essentiality in this sense cannot be detected prospectively, but this is just what we should expect, and far from causing problems for deployment realists, this frees them from unreasonable obligations.

The book introduces to the analytic philosophy of language by presenting the main classical authors and texts of the XX Century, as well as the key problems and concepts of this discipline in their historical context. Ch. I: general introduction to the philosophy of language. Ch. II: Frege. Ch. III: Russell. Ch. IV: Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Ch: V: Neopositivism and verificationism. Ch. VI: Carnap's intensional semantics. Ch. VII: Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. Ch. VIII: Quine. Ch. IX: theories of direct reference. Everything is explained in plain but precise language, with many examples. Thus, the reader realizes how each author addresses the problems set by earlier investigations, in turn opening new problems for discussion and advancing the state of the art. The critical comparison among different positions raises possible objections and answers, introducing to the rational debate in the style of analytic philosophy. Whenever required the book also introduces basic notions of logics, metaphysics, philosophy of science, foundations of mathematics, epistemology and philosophy of mind. Each argument is dealt with on three distinct levels: introductory, intermediate, advanced. Therefore, the book can be helpful to beginners, to graduate students, and to researchers.

In an earlier article on this journal I argued that the problem of empirical underdetermination can for the largest part be solved by theoretical virtues, and for the remaining part it can be tolerated. Here I confront two further challenges to scientific realism based on underdetermination. First, there are four classes of theories which may seem to be underdetermined even by theoretical virtues. Concerning them I argue that (i) theories produced by trivial permutations and (ii) “equivalent descriptions” are compatible with the truth of standard theories; instead (iii) “as if” versions of standard theories are much worse from the point of view of theoretical virtues; finally (iv) mathematically intertranslatable theories either may become empirically decidable in the future, or can be discriminated by theoretical virtues, or realists may simply plead ignorance about their claims. Secondly, I consider Stanford’s underdetermination with respect unconceived alternatives, arguing that it essentially relies on the pessimistic meta-induction from the falsity of all past theories. Therefore, it can be resisted by (a) considering the radical advancement of present with respect to past science, and (b) arguing with selective realism that past successful theories, even if false, always included some true components.

Gerald Doppelt claims that Deployment Realism cannot withstand the antirealist objections based on the “pessimistic meta-induction” and Laudan’s historical counterexamples. Moreover it is incomplete, as it purports to explain the predictive success of theories, but overlooks the necessity to explain also their explanatory success. Accordingly, he proposes a new version of realism, presented as the best explanation of both predictive and explanatory success, and committed only to the truth of best current theories, not of the discarded ones. Elsewhere I criticized his new brand of realism. Here instead I argue that Doppelt has not shown that Deployment Realism cannot solve the problems raised by the history of science, explaining explanatory success does not add much to explaining novel predictive success, and Doppelt is right that truth is not a sufficient explanans, but for different reasons, and this does not refute Deployment Realism, but helps to detail it better. In a more explicit formulation, the realist IBE concludes not only to the truth of theories, but also to the reliability of scientists and scientific method, the order and simplicity of nature, and the approximate truth of background theories.

Epistemologists have debated at length whether scientific discovery is a rational and logical process. If it is, according to the Artificial Intelligence hypothesis, it should be possible to write computer programs able to discover laws or theories; and if such programs were written, this would definitely prove the existence of a logic of discovery. Attempts in this direction, however, have been unsuccessful: the programs written by Simon's group, indeed, infer famous laws of physics and chemistry; but having found no new law, they cannot properly be considered discovery machines. The programs written in the Turing tradition, instead, produced new and useful empirical generalization, but no theoretical discovery, thus failing to prove the logical character of the most significant kind of discoveries. A new cognitivist and connectionist approach by Holland, Holyoak, Nisbett and Thagard, looks more promising. Reflection on their proposals helps to understand the complex character of discovery processes, the abandonment of belief in the logic of discovery by logical positivists, and the necessity of a realist interpretation of scientific research.

This book offers the most complete and up-to-date overview of the philosophical work of Evandro Agazzi, presently the most important Italian philosopher of science, and one of the most influential in the world. Scholars from seven countries explore his contributions in areas ranging from philosophy of physics and general philosophy of science to bioethics, philosophy of mathematics and logic, epistemology of the social sciences and history of science, philosophy of language and artificial intelligence, education and anthropology, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion. Agazzi developed a complete and coherent philosophical system, anticipating some of the turns in the philosophy of science after the crisis of logical empiricism and exerting an equal influence on continental hermeneutic philosophy. His work is characterized by an original synthesis of contemporary analytic philosophy, phenomenology, and classical philosophy, including the scholastic tradition, and these threads are reflected in the different backgrounds of the contributors to this book. While upholding the epistemological value of science against scepticism and relativism, Agazzi eschews scientism by stressing the equal importance of non-scientific forms of thought, such as metaphysics and religion. While defending the freedom of research as a cognitive enterprise, he argues that as a human and social practice it must nonetheless respect ethical constraints.

Is behavioral integration (i.e., which occurs when a subjects assertion that p matches her non-verbal behavior) a necessary feature of belief in folk psychology? Our data from nearly 6,000 people across twenty-six samples, spanning twenty-two countries suggests that it is not. Given the surprising cross-cultural robustness of our findings, we suggest that the types of evidence for the ascription of a belief are, at least in some circumstances, lexicographically ordered: assertions are first taken into account, and when an agent sincerely asserts that p, non-linguistic behavioral evidence is disregarded. In light of this, we take ourselves to have discovered a universal principle governing the ascription of beliefs in folk psychology.

Many formulations of scientific realism (SR) include some commitment to metaphysical realism (MR). On the other hand, authors like Schlick, Carnap and Putnam held forms of scientific realism coupled with metaphysical antirealism (and this has analogies in Kant). So we might ask: do scientific realists really need MR? or is MR already implied by SR, so that SR is actually incompatible with metaphysical antirealism? And if MR must really be added to SR, why is that so? And which additional arguments scientific realists need to support it? After reviewing and classifying a number of different kinds of realisms, metaphysical and not, I answer that SR and MR are logically independent of each other, so that there is no logical inconsistency in holding SR while rejecting MR. However, I argue that the “no miracle” argument (NMA) not only is the “ultimate” argument for SR, but by the same token it also supports MR. Therefore one cannot effectively defend SR without also subscribing to MR, but this can be done at no additional argumentative cost. I show this by discussing not only the standard version of the NMA, but also three more versions which are not usually considered as such in the literature.