No miracles argument

No Miracles Argument

The No Miracles Argument (NMA) is a central thesis in the philosophy of science, particularly within the domain of scientific realism. It posits that the success of scientific theories is best explained by the assumption that these theories are true or approximately true representations of the world. The argument is often summarized by the phrase, "the success of science would be a miracle if scientific theories were not at least approximately true."

Historical Context

The No Miracles Argument was prominently articulated by philosopher Hilary Putnam in the 1970s. Putnam argued that the empirical success of scientific theories—such as their predictive power and technological applications—would be inexplicable if these theories did not accurately describe the underlying reality. This argument was formulated in response to the challenge posed by scientific anti-realism, which holds that scientific theories do not necessarily reflect true aspects of the world but are merely useful instruments for organizing observations.

Core Components

The NMA hinges on several key components:

**Empirical Success**: The argument begins with the observation that scientific theories are extraordinarily successful in predicting and explaining phenomena. For example, the Standard Model in particle physics has made numerous accurate predictions about the behavior of subatomic particles.
**Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE)**: The NMA employs the principle of IBE, which suggests that we should accept the explanation that best accounts for the observed data. In this case, the best explanation for the success of scientific theories is that they are true or approximately true.
**Rejection of Alternative Explanations**: The NMA argues against alternative explanations, such as the idea that the success of scientific theories is due to mere coincidence or pragmatic utility. These alternatives are deemed less plausible because they fail to account for the systematic and sustained success of science.

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Despite its intuitive appeal, the NMA has faced several criticisms:

**Pessimistic Meta-Induction**: One of the most significant challenges to the NMA is the pessimistic meta-induction, which points out that many successful scientific theories from the past have been proven false. For instance, Newtonian mechanics was highly successful but was eventually supplanted by Einstein's theory of relativity.
**Underdetermination of Theory by Data**: This criticism, rooted in the Duhem-Quine thesis, argues that empirical data alone cannot determine which of several competing theories is true. Therefore, the success of a theory does not necessarily imply its truth.
**Instrumentalism**: Instrumentalists argue that the success of scientific theories can be explained by their utility in organizing observations and making predictions, without requiring that the theories be true.

Variants and Developments

The NMA has inspired various modifications and developments:

**Selective Realism**: Some philosophers advocate for a selective or entity realism, which holds that only certain parts of scientific theories—typically those concerning unobservable entities—are true. This approach aims to reconcile the NMA with the historical record of theory change.
**Structural Realism**: Another variant is structural realism, which maintains that the success of science is due to the accurate representation of the structure of the world, rather than the truth of specific theoretical entities. This view attempts to preserve the NMA while acknowledging the fallibility of scientific theories.

Implications for Scientific Practice

The NMA has significant implications for scientific practice and the philosophy of science:

**Theory Choice**: The argument supports the idea that scientists should prefer theories that offer the best explanations for observed phenomena, reinforcing the role of explanatory power in theory choice.
**Scientific Progress**: The NMA suggests a cumulative view of scientific progress, where successive theories build upon and refine previous ones, moving closer to the truth.
**Realism vs. Anti-Realism Debate**: The NMA remains a central point of contention in the ongoing debate between scientific realists and anti-realists, influencing discussions on the nature and aims of scientific inquiry.