ali paya
Abstract
The issue of developing a rational framework for not only assessing scientific theories but also providing effective guidelines for satisfactory progress of science lies at the heart of modern methodological debates in the field of philosophy of science. During the past few decades, realists and anti-realists ...
Read More
The issue of developing a rational framework for not only assessing scientific theories but also providing effective guidelines for satisfactory progress of science lies at the heart of modern methodological debates in the field of philosophy of science. During the past few decades, realists and anti-realists of every hue have tried to produce viable theories for science. Any viable theory of science ought to be able to provide, among other things, satisfactory answers for the three following questions, namely, "What must the world be like for scientific knowledge not only to be possible but also to have the greatest chance of progress?"; "What aim and structure must science have to be successful, i.e., to give us knowledge of the observable as well as unobservable aspects of the physical universe?"; and "How must the methodology be like to maximize the success-rate of science?" In what follows, making use of the ideas of a number of realists writers including Karl Popper, Roy Bhaskar and Nicholas Maxwell, I shall try to tackle the above questions. The upshot of the arguments of the paper is that a new type of realist approach, mostly based on the views of mature Popper (Popper post 1960s) but also enriched by the insights offered by some other realist writers provides not only a powerful framework for making rational sense of science but also an effective research tradition for the advancement of science
