Abstract

The pursuit of scientific truth has long engaged philosophers of science. Miriam Solomon’s work in Social Empiricism introduces "Whig realism," which proposes that empirical success in science reflects some underlying truths within theories. This paper examines Solomon’s argument and discusses its response to a traditional scientific realism argument. I then critique Solomon’s treatment of decision vectors and their usage in determining when dissent is normatively appropriate. I conclude that, while Solomon’s framework provides some insights into the dynamics of scientific progress, concerns arise regarding its application.