CFP: Synthese Topical Collection "Meta-Level Reflections on the Scientific Realism Debate"

Call for Papers: Meta-Level Reflections on the Scientific Realism Debate

Guest Editors: Matthias Egg, Mahdi Khalili and Frederick Britt (University of Bern)

Topical Collection Description:

It has repeatedly been claimed that the debate on scientific realism is a mess. While realists have always felt that major theories are too successful to be false, many find such confidence difficult to reconcile with the history and practice of science and thus seek to establish more cautious accounts of how to discern reasonably secure parts of scientific knowledge. The debate is thriving, to be sure, but for all its sophistication some think it is bound to end in stalemate: Taking the history and practice of science into account, at any rate, has not led to anything like closure, but rather to a wealth of case studies so controversial as to turn many people away from the debate altogether.

The goal of this topical collection is to take a step back and reconsider the nature, value, and means of the debate. Indeed, there have been clear signs of a particularist as well as a pragmatic turn for some time. Particularists, on the one hand, might endorse the proliferation of case studies while arguing that philosophical considerations must yield to scientific evidence for or against any specific claims under consideration. Pragmatists, on the other hand, might embrace the proliferation of philosophical accounts while arguing that they will ultimately rest on opposing stances rather than solid evidence of any kind. This raises further questions as to whether there might be any grounds to adopt one stance over another. There are those who advocate voluntarism in this respect, but many would rather see practical implications for research, science policy, science communication, or the social role of science being explored and taken into account accordingly.

Appropriate Topics for Submission include, among others:

- the importance and limitations of using case studies in the realism debate,

- the need to justify the adoption of a certain stance in the debate,

- the usefulness of the debate for science, science policy, or society at large,

- other approaches to rendering the debate more fruitful.

For further information, please contact the corresponding guest editor: [email protected]

The deadline for submissions is March 31, 2026.