This paper examines the plausibility of an explanatory link connecting the empirical success of a scientific theory with its truth. Because this idea is intuitively convincing, it might be worth considering all the potential problems of it. The central question of this paper is how to explain empirical success in science. This leads to some additional considerations: what are the objections to the realist explanation, which I take to be the common-sense starting point of the discussion, and what are the alternatives; what role does the question play in the broader question of the epistemological status of science; why does this question matter? In this paper, I try to obtain a solid overview of the discussion around the so-called no-miracles argument.
|