 Μπορείτε να μιλήσετε τι είναι η καλύτερη αγγημή για αγγελίσμα. Άρα, υπάρχουν πολλές αγγημές, αλλά η αγγημή που έχει been associated with the defense of scientific realism είναι ότι έκανε να είναι called the No Miracles Argument. Είναι ένας αγγελίσματος αγγελίσματος, πολύ κοντροβερσιακός, με πολύ many interpretations. Ήρθε να πάει στον Χίλαρ Ιπατνάμ, ένα αγγελίσματος άμερικος φιλόσοφερας, ότι αποφέρει κάποια αγγελίσμα της Στραπείας των Ανθρώπων, στις αγγελίσματος, είναι η μόνη φιλόσοφη βοηθά 생겼ης τις αγγελίσματος. Αυτό είναι ένας στιγμό και αυτό δεν είναι σαν διεθνόση. Ο αγγελίσματος είναι ότι η στιγμή της θεσμίας, το οποίο καθώς μιλήσει τα αμπιρικές αγγελίσματα, ακόμη όγελα τα αμπιρικά αγγελίσματα, τα αμπιρικά στιγμή της θησμίας να άγγηθεί πραγματικές, προσπαθούσαν, πριν την θεωρία πραγματικά δημιουργούνται. Αυτό το δίκαιο μεταξύ της δημιουργίας, έχει been the thrust behind the no miracles argument that pattern put forward, but it was very popular in the 50s and the 60s among various philosophers including Grover Maxwell and Jack Smart in Australia. It became very important in the 80s and the 90s thanks to the work of Richard Boyd, an American philosopher of science who developed the so-called explanation his defense of realism according to which realism as a philosophical position about science is the best explanation of the success of scientific theories. I got involved into this debate in the early 90s and my own reconstruction of the argument is slightly different. I'm going to present that now as a way to motivate some discussion about this. I take it to be an argument for the reliability of scientific methodology and especially an argument for the reliability of a famous but controversial method inference to the best explanation. I take it to be a two-part or a two-stage argument. The first stage, the premise is the following. Scientific methodology is theory laden. That is, all scientific methodology is full of theoretical assumptions and theoretical presuppositions. Premise two, these theory laden methods lead to correct predictions and experimental success. That is, the scientific methodology is instrumentally reliable. How can we explain that or how are we to explain this? The conclusion of the first part is that the best explanation of the instrumentary reliability of scientific methodology is this. The claim is somewhat convoluted that I'm going to make now but I'll explain why it should be convoluted. The statements of the theory which assert the specific causal connections or mechanisms in which methods yield successful predictions are approximately true. I repeat, the statements of the theory assert the specific causal connections or mechanisms in which methods yield successful predictions are approximately true. It's important to be this convoluted in the conclusion because I want to say that the best explanation is not the theory as a whole but only those parts of the theory which actually are involved in the generation of the prediction of the successful novel predictions and the explanations of them. So it's a more local version of the global no miracles argument. In any case one who establish this kind of conclusion we move to the second part of the argument. The premise here is this these background scientific theories have themselves been typically arrived at by abductive reasoning that is by inference the best explanation and the second conclusion is therefore it is reasonable to believe that abductive reasoning is reliable, it tends to generate approximately true theories. A word about terminology, abduction is a word coined by Charles Peirce, an American pragmatist philosopher to refer to a specific method which goes from the effect to the cause or from the effect to the explanation the explanance which were to be true would make the explanandum a matter of course. There is some controversy about what exactly this method amounts to but for many people the inference to the best explanation is a species of abduction and many people use the two expressions synonymously abduction is to the best explanation. More specifically, inference to the best explanation is a scientific method used in philosophy too as well which says that among the various explanations of a certain phenomenon the best one according to some criteria of goodness or if you like bestness is the one that is more likely to be true. It's again a very controversial method but it's the method behind the No Miracles argument and precisely the No Miracles argument aims to have a known understanding of it to ground the reliability and explain the reliability of IBE as a scientific method of developing and accepting scientific theories. So the aim of the No Miracles argument in my reading of it is to defend the reliability of inference to the best explanation as a mode of reasoning and it's important to keep in mind the instrumental reliability as I use the expression instrumental reliability is just a reliability in predicting useful facts reliability is the ability of a theory to lead to true beliefs and theoretical assumptions. So the way I reconstruct the No Miracles argument as I said there are two conclusions the first conclusion is that we should accept as approximately true the theories that are implicated in the best explanation of the instrumental reliability of first order scientific methodology and the second conclusion is that since these theories have been arrived that by inference to the best explanation IBE is reliable that is truth conducive. Both conclusions are necessary for fulfilling the aim of the No Miracles argument. So if the first premise is true given a factual premise that is that theories are arrived that by IBE then we can conclude that IBE is generally reliable in producing scientific, true scientific theories.