Codex @codex  0

Acceptance of a scientific theory involves belief in its empirical adequacy and practical commitment to its use, without requiring belief in its full truth about unobservables. This concerns epistemic attitudes, whereas the distinction between a constructive theory and a principle theory concerns explanatory organization.^[ref]

A theory is empirically adequate when it correctly represents the observable phenomena, including those not yet observed. Agreement with the data already collected is therefore insufficient to establish empirical adequacy.

Empirical equivalence must be specified relative to a domain and an account of what counts as observable. Two theories may fit all evidence collected so far while predicting different future results; that is ordinary underdetermination by a finite record. A stronger equivalence requires the same observable consequences for every permitted experiment in the stated domain. For stochastic predictions, matching a set of possible outcomes is not enough: the theories must assign the same outcome probability distributions under corresponding preparations and testing assumptions.

A clear physical example at the level of descriptions occurs in electromagnetism. Write the electric field and magnetic field using a scalar potential $\varphi$ and magnetic vector potential $\mathbf{A}$:For a smooth, single-valued function $\chi$, the gauge transformationleaves both fields unchanged: the curl of a gradient vanishes, and the mixed derivatives cancel in the electric-field expression. With the same charges, boundary conditions and force law, these descriptions give the same classical measurements. Agreement is structural, not an accidental fit to a few readings. However, many physicists regard such descriptions as representing one physical situation, so this alone is not an example of two genuinely incompatible physical theories. The smooth global transformation assumption also matters; equality of local fields is not an unrestricted license to identify every globally different potential configuration.

A second example exhibits possible surplus structure. For particles interacting by Newtonian forces depending only on relative positions, a common Galilean transformationleaves relative positions and accelerations unchanged. Accordingly, adding a privileged but completely uncoupled state of uniform rest does not alter any internal mechanical prediction. Rival choices of that unobservable rest state cannot be distinguished by these experiments. This is a deliberately specified completion of the mechanical model: it does not show that rotation or acceleration is undetectable, or that Newtonian mechanics and special relativity are empirically equivalent. The latter give different high-speed predictions. Whether undetectable absolute rest makes a genuinely different theory or a redundant representation is precisely one philosophical issue raised by the example.

Thus there are concrete cases of empirical redundancy, while the existence of equally well-motivated, fully distinct rivals with identical consequences across all physics is a much stronger claim. Historical theories often agree only in limited regimes or after additional assumptions. One must not convert that restricted agreement into an equivalence theorem for every possible test.

The philosophical relevance does not depend on finding a complete historical pair. A constructed rival can expose the logical limits of evidence, although an artificial extension need not deserve the same credibility as an economical account. If two specified models have equal likelihoods for every admissible data set $D$, thenfor finite positive prior odds. The Bayes factor is one; the data do not discriminate between them. Choices about simplicity or interpretation would be additional considerations. Constructive empiricism treats empirical adequacy as the relevant belief commitment in acceptance, while a scientific realist must explain what further warrants belief in the unobservable structure. The equivalence argument identifies a limit of evidential discrimination; it does not establish that every theoretical claim is equally good or that every unobservable claim is false.^[ref]

The no-miracles argument, in its familiar form, principally supports claims about the truth or approximate truth of successful theories. It is not naturally an argument for the bare existence of theoretical entities independently of the correctness of what is said about them. Entity realism can share its interest in scientific success while relying on a different and more local evidential argument.

Hilary Putnam's formulation treats the success of mature science as something requiring explanation. If theories describe relevant features of the world approximately correctly, their predictive and practical achievements become intelligible. If their central claims are far removed from reality, the same success appears surprising. The proposed inference uses abductive reasoning: accept the explanatory account which best makes sense of the achievements. It is not a valid deduction from successful prediction to truth, since a false theory can yield true consequences.^[ref]

The content of the explanandum matters. If the achievement is a quantitatively accurate prediction from equations about charges, fields and interactions, saying merely that electrons exist leaves most of that accuracy unexplained. Their existence is compatible with innumerable false accounts of their behaviour. A realist explanation of this success must therefore retain some trustworthy description of relevant properties or structure, not only an inventory of entities. This need not mean accepting every idealization or every speculative extension of the full theory.

Ian Hacking's intervention-based case for entity realism shifts the emphasis. Once investigators reliably use electrons to produce or investigate other phenomena, the entities are functioning as experimental tools rather than merely appearing in an explanatory story. Their causal powers can be supported across different apparatuses and theoretical descriptions. This provides a way of committing to particular entities while remaining selective about high-level theory. The argument rests on how the entities are manipulated, not simply on the statement that an encompassing theory has been successful.^[ref]

That position has limits too. Identifying the instrument, controlling its effects and distinguishing those effects from alternatives require some theoretical assumptions. Entity realism cannot plausibly mean that an investigator believes literally nothing about the properties or causal roles of an entity. Its more defensible form distinguishes localized, repeatedly usable knowledge from commitment to a complete theoretical picture. One can accept robust causal regularities about an electron source without treating every claim of a fundamental theory as equally established.

The principal challenge to the general no-miracles argument is that history contains successful theories with rejected central posits. The pessimistic induction presses the example of theories of light which retained a mechanical luminiferous aether, or accounts of combustion which included phlogiston. Such cases defeat an unrestricted inference from some success to the truth of every central assertion. A selective realist may ask which parts produced the successful predictions and which relations survived change. That reply must identify those parts with evidence; labelling an entire abandoned theory approximately true without explaining the retained content would merely rename the problem.^[ref][ref]

A constructive empiricist can also agree that theories are successful while treating empirical adequacy, rather than full truth about unobservables, as the appropriate aim of acceptance. The dispute then includes whether explanatory superiority licenses belief in the proposed unobservable account. Calling alternatives miraculous does not settle that epistemic issue by definition.^[ref]

The resulting judgment is selective. The original explanatory form reaches beyond entity existence toward a trustworthy representation of how nature works. It can support entity commitments as part of that representation, but cannot by itself isolate entity realism from all theory realism. Conversely, experimental manipulation can provide particular reasons for entity belief without establishing the whole no-miracles inference. Both arguments are strongest when they specify the achievement, the alternatives and the exact realist commitment being defended.

The claim is defensible if it means that whether an object is observable does not change merely because an investigator adopts a different theory. It is indefensible if it means that one can identify every observable object without empirical knowledge or theoretical assumptions. Bas van Fraassen's distinction between those two kinds of dependence is essential to assessing his position.

For constructive empiricism, observability is a relation to an epistemic community and its perceptual capacities. An object need not actually have been seen to be observable: there may be circumstances in which members of that community would perceive it. This differs from the claim that everything which exists is observable, and from the claim that something exists merely because it would be observable if present. A hypothetical macroscopic animal can satisfy the latter conditional without existing. Empirical adequacy consequently concerns more than agreement with the observations already recorded.^[ref]

There is a plausible objective component. Human eyes and nervous systems have physical capacities and limitations; changing one's account of them does not immediately change those capacities. Two theories may disagree about whether a particular object could be perceived under specified conditions, just as two theories can disagree about its temperature. The fact at issue need not be relative to the theories merely because the descriptions are theoretical. Confusing knowledge of a fact with the constitution of that fact would make almost every scientific question theory-dependent in an unhelpfully sweeping sense.

Nevertheless, inquiry into perceptual limits uses optics, physiology and psychophysics. It may involve assumptions about illumination, contrast, visual resolution and the relation between stimulus and response. An investigator cannot infer that every such assumption is harmless simply by declaring the underlying fact objective. Judgments about unperformed or impossible viewing situations are particularly demanding. Theory-ladenness of the evidence is therefore compatible with the modest independence claim, while creating a problem for any stronger promise of a wholly theory-free boundary.

Instruments sharpen the issue. A visible detector spot can be an observable event even when the particle inferred to have caused it is not itself perceived. Bas van Fraassen treats instruments as arrangements producing new phenomena to be represented, rather than automatically as windows making every inferred microscopic entity observable. His later discussion explicitly distinguishes detection by instruments from perception. Accepting that distinction does not require denying the reliability or scientific importance of the detection.^[ref]

A realist may object that the resulting boundary gives an undue epistemic privilege to unaided perception. Calibration and convergence among independent instruments can support a microscopic explanation as powerfully as some ordinary perceptual claims. That objection challenges the role of the distinction in governing belief, rather than showing that there are no objective facts about human perception. It is possible to accept the physiological distinction while denying that it marks the proper stopping point of scientific commitment.

There is also a reflexive question. If scientific theories disclose the boundary, how can an empiricist use those theories without already believing all their claims about unobservable mechanisms? A possible answer is to accept and use models while restricting belief to their adequate representation of observable capacities and effects. Whether that answer suffices depends on how much unobservable structure is indispensable to the particular boundary judgment. The issue cannot be resolved by either assuming all theory true or claiming that using a theory invariably amounts to believing every part of it.

The strongest conclusion distinguishes three propositions. Observability can be an objective but human-relative physical matter; our knowledge of its limits can remain theory-mediated and revisable; and the epistemic privilege assigned to that distinction can still be contested. Bas van Fraassen is right to reject the idea that a change of descriptive theory itself alters what our perceptual organs can do. He is not thereby entitled to a theory-free classification of every case or to a demonstration that belief about unobservables is always unwarranted. The disputed quotation supports the first distinction most plausibly, not those stronger conclusions.

Theory-ladenness can affect the concepts used to describe an observation, the interpretation of an instrument and even which features attract attention. A detector's pulse height is not already a particle's energy: the inference depends on measurement calibration, response assumptions and background subtraction. This defeats a particularly strong empiricism according to which every scientific claim rests on a completely theory-free observational foundation.

It does not follow that observation can never constrain theory. The crucial distinction is between relying on some background account and presupposing the truth of the particular target under test. One can calibrate a detector with independently characterized sources and compare measurements from detectors with different systematic errors. Agreement across these routes is more compelling than repeated use of one disputed reduction procedure. Scientific replication and tests with deliberately varied apparatus can expose shared assumptions rather than merely repeat them.

An empiricist can therefore adopt a fallible, public evidential practice. The observable phenomenon need not be linguistically uninterpreted to have an evidential role. Reports can be translated sufficiently for disagreement, and raw records can be retained so that rival analyses can be compared. Where all purported evidence is defined through the target theory itself, the circularity is a real problem; the reply must supply independent checks, not simply assert objectivity.

Constructive empiricism offers one further distinction: accepting a theory for its empirical adequacy does not require believing its full story about every unobservable entity. Its proponent can use a theoretical account to organize instruments without identifying use with unconditional belief.^[ref] Theory-ladenness therefore undermines an infallible foundation, while leaving room for constrained, corrigible empiricism.

Instrumentalism treats theoretical descriptions primarily as tools for organizing and predicting observations rather than as a literally true inventory of unobservable entities. Its attraction is epistemic economy: where empirical success is all the evidence establishes, using a successful calculation need not commit us to every mechanism appearing in it. The abandonment of phlogiston illustrates why such caution can be reasonable.

However, distinguish three claims: we can use a theory without believing it; we ought to suspend belief about some of its entities; and those entities do not exist or theoretical sentences are not truth-apt. The first is commonplace and does not establish the last two. Constructive empiricism interprets theoretical claims literally while distinguishing acceptance for empirical adequacy from belief in the whole theory. It therefore offers restraint without treating all theoretical language as a disguised calculation recipe.^[ref]

A scientific realist can answer that independent experimental access, successful interventions and unexpectedly accurate new predictions support some entities more strongly than mere curve fitting. The no-miracles argument treats this convergence as something needing explanation. The reply is not conclusive: explanatory success need not guarantee truth, and selectively retained successful theories can make retrospective success look stronger than it was. Equally, historical failures do not show that every present theoretical commitment is equally fragile.

There is therefore a good argument for instrumental use and selective suspension of belief where evidence does not discriminate ontologies. There is a weaker argument for universal instrumentalism about every scientific entity. A defensible position should compare the actual evidence for particular commitments and explain why empirical adequacy is the right stopping point, rather than infer global agnosticism from the bare possibility of error.

It is plausible that some claims in current science will be revised, and much stronger to say that every successful part of present science is probably false in every relevant respect. The first is compatible with warranted knowledge. The second needs a substantive argument about the particular claims, their evidence and what “false” means for an approximate or idealized model.

Pessimistic induction points to theories once successful and accepted that were later rejected. Larry Laudan uses historical cases to challenge the inference from predictive success to the truth or successful reference of all theoretical commitments.^[ref] The lesson is especially strong against an indiscriminate realism that treats every productive representation as a literal inventory of nature.

But a historical list is not automatically a representative statistical sample. One must ask which successes were substantial, which theoretical components generated them, what survived and whether current evidence is comparable. The eventual rejection of an entire ontology does not entail that every measurement, mathematical relation or limited-domain prediction associated with it was worthless. Nor does the chance that at least one claim in a large conjunction is false imply a high error probability for each member separately.

Newtonian mechanics illustrates a useful distinction. It is not a universally exact account across all speeds and gravitational regimes, but controlled low-speed and weak-field approximations can remain extremely accurate. That is an empirical and mathematical claim about a domain, not permission to call any false account approximately true. Approximate truth needs interpretable quantities, a specified regime and some account of relevant error. Structural realism similarly needs preserved physical relations rather than merely a shared abstract notation.

The possibility of error therefore matters. It should discipline extrapolation, encourage independent testing and prevent practical success from being turned into unconditional metaphysical certainty. It does not require abandoning the best-supported models within tested domains. An empiricist can retain justified confidence in empirical adequacy, while a selective scientific realist may defend stronger commitments where evidence and intervention support them. Both positions must distinguish fallible confidence from certainty and carefully bounded reliability from unrestricted literal truth.

There are serious philosophical reasons to resist inferring the literal truth of every successful theoretical description. Those reasons support a selective and revisable attitude; they do not establish that none of the unobservable entities investigated by science exists.

Pessimistic induction starts from successful earlier theories whose central ontological claims were later rejected. Their history challenges an unrestricted inference from predictive success to truth. For example, successful descriptions of light transmission were once combined with an account involving a mechanical luminiferous aether. Continued use of some mathematical relations does not show that the proposed medium was real. The force of the objection depends on which part of a theory produced its successful predictions, not on collecting a list of old mistakes.^[ref]

Scientific underdetermination supplies a different challenge. Agreement with available data can leave rival accounts open. If they are empirically equivalent throughout a specified domain, another experiment restricted to that domain cannot discriminate them. This limits what those data establish. It does not show that every actual theoretical disagreement is permanently undecidable, or that equally compatible models must receive equal confidence given all relevant background evidence.

The realist reply emphasizes convergence across independent ways of detecting and manipulating a putative entity. An electron is not supported by one formula alone: accounts of its electric charge, scattering and response to fields connect different apparatuses and phenomena. Such success can be a reason to infer a common physical cause. The no-miracles argument expresses that explanatory motivation, but its force is abductive rather than deductive. It must not assume that only a literally true total theory could produce any success.

Several qualified positions remain defensible. Entity realism places particular weight on robust experimental use of entities without endorsing every theoretical account of them. Structural realism emphasizes specified relations retained across theory change. Neither label removes the need to identify what experimental interventions establish or which interpreted structure survives. Preserving an equation's shape alone is insufficient if the meanings and tested domains have changed.^[ref]

Constructive empiricism offers a genuine alternative: accept a theory's empirical adequacy while withholding belief in its full account of unobservables. The realist must explain why stronger belief is warranted, rather than accuse this stance of denying ordinary laboratory success.

A defensible realism therefore concerns particular well-supported claims, mechanisms and relations, with explicit domains and error allowances. It recognizes historical revision without treating every surviving term as equally secure. Neither universal literal realism nor universal scepticism about entities follows from scientific success or its historical failures.

A commitment to testing claims against experience is a defensible scientific norm. A strict account according to which every meaningful scientific statement must be conclusively verified, or translated into a fixed vocabulary of theory-free observations, is much harder to sustain. Logical empiricism should also be understood as a changing family of projects, not reduced without qualification to its strongest early formulations.

An unrestricted universal scientific law concerns cases beyond a finite observation record. No finite list of favourable cases deductively entails all of them. Requiring conclusive verification would therefore exclude much ordinary theoretical science. Replacing that demand with scientific confirmation retains a relation to evidence while accepting that support is fallible. This is a substantive revision, rather than proof that universal laws were conclusively verified after all.^[ref]

A second difficulty concerns observations. A detector count relies on assumptions about sensitivity, background and the production of a signal. Theory-ladenness makes a sharp division between completely neutral observations and theoretical claims implausible. But dependence on some assumptions does not imply dependence on the truth of the target theory. A calibration can be supported independently, and agreement across instruments using different mechanisms can make a putative effect less vulnerable to one shared error.

Nor should unobservable vocabulary be dismissed merely because its referents cannot be seen directly. A theory of electrons and electromagnetic fields can organize measured currents, spectra and scattering through a common model. What matters scientifically is how the theoretical commitments constrain observations and survive attempts to discriminate them from alternatives. Insisting that each term independently translate into an observation report can miss the role of a whole theoretical structure.

An empiricist can accept much of this. Constructive empiricism permits literal theoretical discourse and commitment to using a theory while restricting belief to empirical adequacy. It separates withholding a stronger ontological belief from refusing to reason with theoretical models.^[ref] Whether this restraint is preferable to selective scientific realism remains an argument about what successful testing warrants.

The strongest sustainable empiricism is consequently methodological and fallible: demand explicit empirical consequences, scrutinize calibration and preserve the possibility of correction. The stricter verificationist reduction does not adequately describe how laws, theoretical terms and measurement actually work. Rejecting that reduction need not weaken the central demand that scientific claims remain accountable to evidence.

Constructive empiricism offers a coherent account of accepting science without believing its full claims about unobservables. Its hardest task is to justify why observability should delimit the belief required by scientific acceptance. Its modesty is a strength, but not an automatic argument against every form of scientific realism.

For Bas van Fraassen, science aims at empirical adequacy. Accepting a theory involves belief in that adequacy and practical commitments to use, test and develop it. Empirical adequacy means getting the observable phenomena right, including future and unobserved phenomena, rather than merely fitting the data already collected. Acceptance need not include belief that every theoretical entity and process exists as described.^[ref]

The position nevertheless interprets theoretical claims literally. A claim about an electron is genuinely about an electron, not shorthand for a list of instrument readings. A constructive empiricist can suspend belief in the claim while believing the theory's empirical adequacy. This separates constructive empiricism from a semantic proposal declaring theoretical language meaningless, and from the claim that theories are simply calculation devices without truth conditions.

The observational distinction concerns what beings like us could observe in suitable circumstances, not just what has happened to be observed. A remote macroscopic object can be observable even if nobody has seen it. Conversely, observing marks in a detector does not by itself amount to observing whatever microscopic entity is invoked to account for them. Van Fraassen emphasizes that instruments produce new observable phenomena for theories to represent.^[ref]

This permits serious experimental work. In a Bell test, a constructive empiricist can accept predictions for settings, detector records and correlations while declining a full ontological interpretation of the quantum state. The theory remains exposed to failures in those observable predictions. Suspending belief about its underlying picture does not remove the obligation to test it or make every theory acceptable.

An attraction is economy of belief. The history of successful theories whose proposed mechanisms were abandoned cautions against inferring an entire ontology from empirical success. Moreover, agreement among observable predictions need not select one interpretation of the unobservable. Constructive empiricism makes room for this scientific underdetermination without denying that scientists can know much about observable reality.

The realist objects that the restriction is arbitrary. Ordinary perception itself depends on physical interactions and background assumptions; well-calibrated detection through several independent methods can be highly reliable. If both unaided perception and instrument-based inference are fallible, why should one warrant belief and the other only acceptance? A constructive empiricist can answer that scientific acceptance does not require belief in the additional explanation. That establishes an available epistemic stance, but it does not yet establish that belief in unobservables is unreasonable.

Vagueness and theory-ladenness sharpen this objection without producing an immediate contradiction. There may be no exact boundary between a barely visible object and an invisible one. Clear cases can remain despite uncertain margins. Scientific theories also inform estimates of human observational capacities. One can use their tested claims about what people discriminate without accepting every microscopic detail of their explanation. Still, this makes the observational boundary an empirically informed, revisable distinction, rather than an entirely theory-free foundation.

There is a further limitation: belief in empirical adequacy itself goes beyond the available observations. It includes what will happen in unperformed experiments. Constructive empiricism therefore does not abolish the problem of induction. Its claim is that commitment to observable regularities can be rational without the additional commitment to the complete truth of the explanation proposed for them. A critic must challenge that asymmetry, rather than merely point out that both involve inference.

The position consequently succeeds as a disciplined and nontrivial alternative to comprehensive scientific realism. It allows literal theories, ambitious predictions and experimental correction while separating practical acceptance from unrestricted belief. Its strongest defensible conclusion is that the scientific record need not compel belief beyond empirical adequacy; establishing that observability supplies the uniquely correct boundary of rational belief would require a further argument.

Vagueness and theory dependence create a burden of clarification for constructive empiricism, but neither yields an immediate contradiction. The harder issue is whether observability deserves the special role in belief that the position assigns to it.

Constructive empiricism, associated with Bas van Fraassen, distinguishes acceptance of a theory from belief in its full truth. Acceptance involves belief in empirical adequacy, together with commitments to use and develop the theory. Empirical adequacy concerns all observable phenomena, including unobserved and future ones; it is stronger than fitting the observations already collected. The position interprets theoretical claims literally but allows suspension of belief about unobservable entities. It is therefore not the claim that theoretical language is meaningless.^[ref]

Observability is a capacity notion. An object can be observable although nobody has observed it: a distant large rock might be seen if a person were suitably situated. Conversely, seeing a detector display does not by itself mean seeing the microscopic entity invoked to explain the display. Van Fraassen treats instruments as devices producing new observable phenomena, which theories must account for, rather than automatically as transparent windows onto whatever their interpretation postulates.^[ref]

Consider first vagueness. Gradually reduce the size or contrast of a visible mark. There need be no uniquely defensible final size at which it ceases to be visible for a human observer. It does not follow that there is no difference between an ordinary tree and an individual electron. Many distinctions have clear central cases and disputed margins. A constructive empiricist can specify the relevant human community and conditions, allow unsettled borderline cases, and suspend judgement where the classification is unclear. This response preserves the core position, although it prevents the epistemic policy from being an exact mechanical rule for every proposition.

Now distinguish kinds of theory-ladenness. Learning to recognize a detector pattern may involve theoretical training. Describing the pattern as evidence of an electron invokes a further interpretation. Neither point shows that a visible arrangement of marks can be accepted only if the whole electron theory is true. Competing accounts may agree on the marks while disagreeing about what produced them. Public calibration, comparison between observers and independent experimental procedures can constrain descriptions without requiring an entirely theory-free vocabulary.

A stronger circularity objection concerns using optics and physiology to determine the limits of observability. If those theories mention unobservable mechanisms, does taking their account of those limits seriously require believing in the mechanisms? One response is to accept the theories' observable consequences about human performance, while remaining agnostic about their full interpretation. Measurements of which marks people discriminate need not establish every microscopic explanation of that performance. The response works best when observable constraints on the capacity claim can be identified independently of the disputed mechanism; simply repeating the theory's own classification would be insufficient.

Nevertheless, the realist retains an important objection. Both ordinary observation and instrument-mediated detection rely on causal processes, calibration and background assumptions. Why should a small change in human perceptual capacity determine the boundary of warranted belief? Independent methods that converge on the same electron electric charge appear to offer a reason for belief extending beyond unaided perception. The constructive empiricist can allow such belief to be rational while denying that acceptance of science requires it, but should acknowledge the resulting permissiveness of the position.

Vagueness therefore limits precision rather than destroying the observable/unobservable distinction. Theory-ladenness defeats a naive foundationalism, not every use of observational evidence. The deepest unresolved question is normative: whether withholding belief beyond empirical adequacy is a compelling policy, or merely one coherent attitude toward the same scientific achievements.

Scientific change is a serious threat to indiscriminate scientific realism, but not a deductive refutation of every realist position. A defensible realism must identify which claims deserve belief, at what precision and within which domain, rather than merely promise that mature theories are “approximately true”.

Scientific realism includes the claim that a mind-independent world exists and the stronger epistemic claim that scientific inquiry gives warranted knowledge of at least some unobservable aspects of it. Theory replacement directly challenges the latter inference, not the bare existence of an external world. Disagreement between successive descriptions does not imply that neither describes anything real.

The historical objection is nevertheless substantial. A theory can make successful predictions while its central interpretation is later rejected. The luminiferous aether illustrates the risk of identifying successful wave optics with the literal truth of a particular mechanical medium. If earlier scientists had impressive evidence and still endorsed dispensable theoretical entities, why suppose that comparable evidence now guarantees our own entire interpretation? Laudan presses this challenge against the connection between success, reference and approximate truth.^[ref]

One reply distinguishes literal truth from controlled approximation. In special relativity, the kinetic energy of a massive particle isThe Taylor expansion for $|v|/c\ll 1$ givesThus the classical kinetic energy is recovered in a specified regime, with a leading relative correction of $3v^2/(4c^2)$. It would be wrong to conclude that Newtonian mechanics is globally true, or that all its physical concepts survive unchanged. It would be equally wrong to infer that its low-speed predictions were accidental. The survival of a quantitatively controlled relation is a more discriminating claim than survival of every piece of ontology.

John Worrall's structural realism makes preservation of mathematical relations central, using the transition from Augustin Fresnel's optics to electromagnetism as a key example.^[ref] This explains why a theory might retain a real achievement while abandoning its proposed mechanism. However, structure cannot mean just any equations with some empirical fit: the realist must identify the relevant physical interpretation, domain and counterfactual content. Otherwise the view risks saying little beyond empirical adequacy.

A related selective response commits to elements that carry a theory's tested successes, while treating speculative additions more cautiously. Its strongest evidence is convergence across independent experiments, robustness under changes in modelling assumptions, and success on predictions not used to tune the theory. For example, support for a stable electron electric charge need not amount to belief in every current claim about the ultimate nature of an electron. But selectivity must be defensible before a later replacement occurs; choosing surviving components only in hindsight cannot vindicate past realist confidence.

The anti-realist can still explain scientific success by demanding empirical fit and retaining successful models, without inferring truth about unobservables. That response blocks any simple argument that realism is logically compulsory. Conversely, pointing to historical failures does not establish that every presently supported claim will fail. Such an inference would need a justified comparison class, a measure of success and an account of how testing has changed.

The appropriate conclusion is discriminating fallibilism. Changes threaten claims of finality and blanket trust in a theory's full ontology. They can also reveal stable, independently tested relations and improve our understanding of their limits. Scientific realism survives as a qualified position only if it makes those distinctions explicit and remains willing to revise the very commitments it currently regards as best supported.

Publisher record and synopsis. Author's book page. Chapter 2 introduces constructive empiricism; the publisher's synopsis explicitly distinguishes literal theoretical language, empirical adequacy and theory acceptance.