Skip to main content
Log in

On Reichenbach’s argument for scientific realism

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to articulate, discuss in detail and criticise Reichenbach’s sophisticated and complex argument for scientific realism. Reichenbach’s argument has two parts. The first part aims to show how there can be reasonable belief in unobservable entities, though the truth of claims about them is not given directly in experience. The second part aims to extent the argument of the first part to the case of realism about the external world, conceived of as a world of independently existing entities distinct from sensations. It is argued that the success of the first part depends on a change of perspective, where unobservable entities are viewed as projective complexes vis-à-vis their observable symptoms, or effects. It is also argued that there is an essential difference between the two parts of the argument, which Reichenbach comes (somewhat reluctantly) to accept.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bisbee E. (1938) A world of probability: Review of Experience and Prediction by Hans Reichenbach. Philosophy of Science 5: 360–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feigl H. (1950) Existential hypotheses: Realistic versus phenomenalistic interpretations. Philosophy of Science 17: 35–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel E. (1938) Review of Experience and Prediction. The Journal of Philosophy 35: 270–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Psillos S. (2009) Knowing the structure of nature. Palgrave/MacMillan, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Psillos, S. (2010). Choosing the realist framework. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9606-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam H. (2001) Hans Reichenbach: Realist and verificationist. In: Floyd J., Shieh S. (eds) Future pasts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 277–288

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach H. (1938) Experience and prediction. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. (2005). Reality and rationality (P. Dowe & M. Salmon, Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Sober E. (2002) Bayesianism-its scope and limits. Proceedings of the British Academy 113: 21–38

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stathis Psillos.

Additional information

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the conference A Philosopher of Science in Istanbul: Hans Reichenbach, Bogazici University, Istanbul, May 2008. Many thanks to Gurol Irzik and Elliott Sober for the kind invitation to participate and to the participants for very useful comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Psillos, S. On Reichenbach’s argument for scientific realism. Synthese 181, 23–40 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9594-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9594-9

Keywords

Navigation