Abstract

According to the success argument for scientific realism, scientific realism must be true or else the success of science would be inexplicable. I contend that this argument fails: scientific realism is unable to account for the predictive successes of scientific theories. Scientific anti-realism also fails to explain these successes, as does social constructivism. I conclude that we are forced to take the second horn of the realist's dilemma and accept that the success of science is inexplicable