Historical Inductions, Unconceived Alternatives, and Unconceived Objections

摘要

In this paper, I outline a reductio against Stanford's "New Induction" on the History of Science, which is an inductive argument against scientific realism that is based on what Stanford (2006) calls "the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives". From the supposition that Stanford's New Induction on the History of Science is cogent, and the parallel New Induction on the History of Philosophy, it follows that scientific an-tirealism is not worthy of belief. I also show that denying a key premise in the reductio only forces antirealists who endorse Stanford's New Induction on the History of Science into a dilemma: either antirealism falls under the axe of Stanford's New Induction on the History of Science or it falls under the axe of the New Induction on the History of Philosophy.