Realism and the Failure of Science: Reversing the No Miracle Argument

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yemima Ben-Menahem
Keyword(s):  
Miracle Argument

APAKAH �TEORI BUMI DATAR� DAPAT DIPANDANG SEBAGAI REALITA?

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-78
Author(s):  
Didit Ardianto ◽  
Harry Firman
Keyword(s):  
Miracle Argument

Abstrak: Teori tentang bumi datar menjadi isu sains yang menjadi peredabatan di masyarakat sekarang ini. Teori ini menentang anggapan tentang Teori Bumi Bulat. Teori Bumi Bulat merupakan teori yang sudah lebih dahulu diyakini oleh beberapa ilmuwan seperti Aristoteles, Ptolemeus, Erasthotenes dan Columbus. Samuel Rowbotham seorang ilmuan asal Inggris menentang kebenaran bumi bulat. Berdasarkan penafsirannya mengenai ayat-ayat tertentu di Alkitab, Rowbotham mempublikasikan sebuah pamflet 16 halaman, yang kemudian ia kembangkan menjadi sebuah buku yang berjudul Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham meyakini bahwa bumi merupakan sebuah cakram datar yang berpusat di Kutub utara dan dikelilingi oleh dinding es Antartika, sementara matahari dan bulan berjarak sekitar 4800 km (3000 mil) dan kosmos berjarak 5000 km (3100 mil) di atas bumi. Teori ini cukup berkembang di bawah organisasi flat earth society. Kaum flat earth mengkaim bahwa Teori Bumi Datar merupakan sebuah realita ontologi secara keilmuan sains. Beberapa klaim yang diyakini oleh kaum flat earth yaitu 1) bentuk bumi bukanah bulat melainkan datar, hal ini didasarkan hasil eksperimen Benford yang membantah adanya lengkungan bumi; 2) universal acceleration merupakan entitas yang lebih tepat digunakan untuk menjelaskan fenomena jatuhnya benda ke permukaan bumi; dan 3) matahari bukanlah pusat tat surya melainkan bumi. Namun klaim-klaim yang dipostulatkan oleh kaum flat earth tidak dapat dianggap sebagai no miracle argument. Penulis berpendapat bahwa hukum gravitasi universal yang tidak diyakini oleh kaum flat earth justru mampu menjelaskan perilaku obyek di alam semesta seperti penyebab jatuhnya benda dan pergerakan planet dalam tata surya.Kata kunci: Bumi Datar, Bumi Spheris, Realita, Ontologi

Novel Predictions and the No Miracle Argument

Erkenntnis ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Alai
Keyword(s):  
Miracle Argument

scholarly journals Arguments Against Realism and the Transcendence of Science

2020 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-75
Author(s):  
Axel Siegemund
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Science And Religion ◽  
Realistic Interpretation ◽  
Miracle Argument ◽  
Theological Realism ◽  
Two Sides

Realism is questioned from two sides, the philosophy of science and religion. First, the “underdetermination of theories by data” and the revision of the “miracle argument” make it necessary to revise scientific realism. Second, the claim that a realistic interpretation of belief contradicts its religious character questions the consistency of theological realism. Both discussions show that we have to further develop realism. I propose to consider truth, meaning, experience, and transcendence as creative characteristics of a realistic thought. They enable us to make and receive meaning for facts.

The Historical Challenge to Realism and Essential Deployment

2021 ◽  
pp. 183-215
Author(s):  
Mario Alai
Keyword(s):  
Occam’S Razor ◽  
Miracle Argument ◽  
Occam's Razor

This chapter outlines how Deployment Realism resists Laudan and Lyons’s objections to the “No Miracle Argument” by arguing that a hypothesis is most probably true when it is deployed essentially in a novel prediction. Criticizing Psillos’s criterion of essentiality, Lyons argued that Deployment Realism must committed itself to all the actually deployed assumptions and concluded that the No Miracle Argument and Deployment Realism fail, since many actually deployed assumptions proved false. The chapter replies that an essentiality condition is required by Occam’s razor and that there is, in fact, a simpler formulation of essentiality that escapes Lyons’s criticisms and rescues the No Miracle Argument and Deployment Realism from their purported historical counterexamples: a hypothesis is essential when it has no proper parts (in Yablo’s sense) sufficient to derive the same prediction. The chapter concludes that, although essentiality so conceived cannot be detected prospectively, this is just natural, and it is not a problem but an advantage for Deployment Realism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document