No-Miracles Argument

The no-miracles argument holds that the truth of our best theories is the only thing that does not make the success of science a miracle.

Definition

The no-miracles argument is an inference to the best explanation that infers the approximate truth of mature, predictively successful scientific theories from the claim that their success would otherwise be inexplicable, or 'miraculous'.

Scope

This topic covers the leading positive argument for scientific realism, its abductive form as an inference to the best explanation of predictive success, and the principal objections, including the charge of circularity and van Fraassen's Darwinian and selectionist alternatives.

Core questions

• Why think predictive success requires a realist explanation?
• Is the argument an inference to the best explanation, and is that form reliable?
• Does the argument beg the question against the antirealist?
• Can the success of science be explained without invoking truth?

Key concepts

• inference to the best explanation
• predictive success
• abduction
• selectionist explanation

Key theories

Miracle argument

Putnam argues that realism is the only philosophy that does not make the success of science a miracle, since approximately true theories with referring terms would be expected to succeed.

Explanationist defence of realism

Psillos develops the argument as a respectable abductive inference, defending the legitimacy of inference to the best explanation against the antirealist.

History

Smart and Putnam articulated the argument in the 1960s–70s, and it became realism's chief positive case. van Fraassen's 1980 Darwinian rejoinder and later charges of circularity prompted Psillos and others to refine the argument's abductive structure and scope.

Debates

Circularity and the alternative Darwinian explanation

van Fraassen objects that the argument uses the very abductive reasoning at issue and that success can be explained selectionally, since only successful theories survive; realists deny the explanations are on a par.

Key figures

• Hilary Putnam
• Stathis Psillos
• Bas van Fraassen
• J. J. C. Smart

Seminal works

• putnam1975
• psillos1999

Frequently asked questions

What is the Darwinian objection to the no-miracles argument?

van Fraassen replies that the success of theories needs no realist explanation because science, like natural selection, retains only successful theories. On this view it is no miracle that surviving theories are successful, since unsuccessful ones are simply abandoned.