Critiquing "Approximate Truth" (original) (raw)

The paper provides a critical analysis of the concept of 'approximate truth' in relation to scientific realism, particularly focusing on the arguments surrounding truthlikeness and its implications for understanding scientific theories. It discusses major philosophical issues, referencing critiques from David Miller and exploring how the approach of realists like Psillos and Giere attempt to reconcile these debates within a naturalized framework. The analysis highlights the complexities and challenges in defining truthlikeness and argues against the sufficiency of these philosophical frameworks in justifying scientific realism.