The Paradox of Predictivism Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Excellent discussion of the topic. Prediction is essential for science. An unpredicted result can be interpreted to fit any theory. Accurate prediction supports a particular theory. The paradox appears to be the ability to predict based on limited knowledge, as with Mendeleev predicting missing elements with little or no understanding of protons. The author supposes additional credibility from prediction rather than results interpreted to fit a theory. A modern application might be the theory of evolution that predicts both the natural rise of life from non-life and the natural rise of complexity from simple life. Astrophysical evolution also predicts the formation of galaxies and solar systems from a "big bang." What is predicted and what is observed? This is the essence of the scientific method.

Click Here to see more reviews about: The Paradox of Predictivism

An enduring question in the philosophy of science is the question of whether a scientific theory deserves more credit for its successful predictions than it does for accommodating data that was already known when the theory was developed. In The Paradox of Predictivism, Eric Barnes argues that the successful prediction of evidence testifies to the general credibility of the predictor in a way that evidence does not when the evidence is used in the process of endorsing the theory. He illustrates his argument with an important episode from nineteenth-century chemistry, Mendeleev's Periodic Law and its successful predictions of the existence of various elements. The consequences of this account of predictivism for the realist/anti-realist debate are considerable, and strengthen the status of the 'no miracle' argument for scientific realism. Barnes's important and original contribution to the debate will interest a wide range of readers in philosophy of science.

Buy cheap The Paradox of Predictivism now.