The Nomological Realism vs. Antirealism Debate and the Inference to the Best Explanation

• Autores: Borge, Bruno, Azar, Roberto
• Formato: artículo
• Fecha de Publicación: 2016
• Institución: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
• Repositorio: Revistas - Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
• Lenguaje: español
• OAI Identifier: oai:revistaspuc:article/15902
• Enlace del recurso: http://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/arete/article/view/15902
• Nivel de acceso: acceso abierto
• Materia: Nomological Realism; Natural Laws; Scientific Laws; Inference to the Best Explanation; Abduction; realismo nomológico; leyes naturales; leyes científicas; inferencia a la mejor explicación; abducción

The dispute between nomological realists and anti-realists has been reflected in the formulation of various arguments and counterarguments that reach topics as diverse as modality, induction and the very scientific practice. In this context it is common to take the main realist argument –the nomological argument– for an instance of Inference to the Best Explanation, while Nomological Anti-realism is considered a skeptical alternative concerning natural laws, sustained by independent reasons. This paper aims to review that image of the Nomological Realism vs. Anti-realism debate in light of what we believe is an appropriate distinction between abduction and Inference to the Best Explanation.