@article{2994521,
    title = "Semirealism or Neo-Aristotelianism?",
    author = "Psillos, S.",
    journal = "Erkenntnis",
    year = "2013",
    volume = "78",
    number = "1",
    pages = "29-38",
    publisher = "Kluwer Academic Publishers",
    issn = "0165-0106, 1572-8420",
    doi = "10.1007/s10670-012-9418-z",
    abstract = "Chakravartty claims that science does not imply any specific metaphysical theory of the world. In this sense, science is consistent with both neo-Aristotelianism and neo-Humeanism. But, along with many others, he thinks that a neo-Aristotelian outlook best suits science. In other words, neo-Aristotelianism is supposed to win on the basis of an inference to the best explanation (IBE). I fail to see how IBE can be used to favour neo-Aristotelianism over neo-Humeanism. In this essay, I aim to do two things. Firstly, I explain why this failure is not idiosyncratic: it should be there even by Chakravartty's lights. Secondly, I raise some critical worries about Chakravartty's semirealism, especially in connection with the concept of a 'concrete structure' and the detection/auxiliary distinction. The essay ends with a dilemma: an exclusive disjunction encapsulated in its title. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht."
}