Post Your Answer
1 year ago in Philosophy By Anusha
I’ve encountered the phrase "realism by bootstraps" in philosophy of science. What does it mean, and how does it relate to the debate between scientific realism and anti-realism?
 In the realism/anti-realism debate, one common realist argument is that the success of science would be a "miracle" if our theories weren't at least approximately true. But critics say this is circular: we judge success by the theories' own lights. I've heard "realism by bootstraps" as a reply. Does it mean we use the success of past theories to justify realism about our current methodology, which then supports realism about current theories? Or is it a more nuanced epistemological move? Who developed this idea (Boyd, Putnam)?
All Answers (1 Answers In All)
By Peter Answered 1 year ago
"Realism by bootstraps," often associated with Richard Boyd, is a sophisticated response to the circularity charge. The anti-realist says: "You can't use the success of science (judged by science) to justify the reliability of science—that's circular." Boyd's move is to argue for a non-vicious, ampliative circularity. We start with common-sense realism and the apparent success of science. We then develop our best scientific theories, which include epistemological theories about how we learn about the world (e.g., theories of instrumentation, inference). These methodological theories are then reflexively applied to justify the very process that generated them. The "bootstrap" is the idea that a coherent, empirically successful package of theories and methodologies provides its own justification over time, converging on truth. It's a naturalistic, holistic epistemology where science, including its own methodology, is tested and confirmed as a unified whole.
Reply to Peter
Related Questions