This paper critically reviews Philip Kitcher�s most recent epistemology of science, real realism. I argue that this view is unstable under different understandings of the term �representation�, and that the arguments offered for the position are either unsound or invalid depending on the understanding employed. Suitably modified those arguments are however convincing in favor of a deflationary version of real realism, which I refer to as the bare view. The bare view accepts Kitcher�s Galilean strategy, and the ensuing commitment to the existence of unobservables; but it does not trade on a correspondence or copy theory of representation. So the bare view, unlike real realism, does not entail that our representations match reality even approximately
© 2001-2024 Fundación Dialnet · Todos los derechos reservados