Abstract In this paper, I reply to Seungbae Park’s (2021)
scientific realism
On the Argument from Double Spaces: A Reply to Moti Mizrahi, Seungbae Park
Abstract Van Fraassen infers the truth of the contextual theory from his observation that it has passed a crucial test. Mizrahi infers the comparative truth of our best theories from his observation that they are more successful than their competitors…. Read More ›
In Defense of Relative Realism: A Reply to Park, Moti Mizrahi
Abstract In this paper, I reply to Seungbae Park’s (2020) critique of the view I defend in Chapter 6 of The Relativity of Theory: Key Positions and Arguments in the Contemporary Scientific Realism/Antirealism Debate (Cham: Springer, 2020), namely, Relative Realism…. Read More ›
The Appearance and the Reality of a Scientific Theory, Seungbae Park
Abstract Scientific realists claim that the best of successful rival theories is (approximately) true. Relative realists object that we cannot make the absolute judgment that a theory is successful, and that we can only make the relative judgment that it… Read More ›
Four Points in Response to Seungbae Park, Richard A. Healey
I thank Seungbae for his spirited and enjoyable reply (2019a) to my comments (2019) on his article (2019). Here, I make four brief points in response … [please read below the rest of the article]. Article Citation: Healey, Richard A…. Read More ›
Constructive Empiricism in a Social World: Reply to Richard Healey, Seungbae Park
Bas van Fraassen (2017) argues that we are rational to believe and disbelieve T,[1] a scientific theory that best explains phenomena, relying on the English view of rationality. In addition, he thinks that the belief of T is supererogatory. As… Read More ›
The Aims of Reliable Knowledge: A Reply to Seungbae Park, Richard A. Healey
As a scientific realist, Seungbae Park in his (2019) paper “The Disastrous Implications of the ‘English’ View of Rationality in a Social World” seeks to repel an anti-realist attack from Bas Van Fraassen by turning his opponent’s new epistemology against… Read More ›
Suppressed Subjectivity and Truncated Tradition, Jeff Kochan
Author Information: Jeff Kochan, University of Konstanz, jwkochan@gmail.com. Kochan, Jeff. “Suppressed Subjectivity and Truncated Tradition: A Reply to Pablo Schyfter.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 7, no. 12 (2018): 15-21. The pdf of the article gives specific page references. Shortlink: https://wp.me/p1Bfg0-44s … Read More ›
Inaccurate Ambitions and Missing Methodologies: Thoughts on Jeff Kochan and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, Pablo Schyfter
Author Information: Pablo Schyfter, University of Edinburgh, p.schyfter@ed.ac.uk Schyfter, Pablo. “Inaccurate Ambitions and Missing Methodologies: Thoughts on Jeff Kochan and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 7, no. 8 (2018): 8-14. The pdf of the article gives… Read More ›
Is There Anything Wrong with Thomas Kuhn?, Markus Arnold
Author Information: Markus Arnold, University of Klagenfurt, markus.arnold@aau.at Arnold, Markus. “Is There Anything Wrong with Thomas Kuhn?.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 7, no. 5 (2018): 42-47. The pdf of the article gives specific page references: Shortlink: https://wp.me/p1Bfg0-3Xs Twenty-two years after his… Read More ›