Abstract
Certain philosophers claim the No-Miracles Argument (NMA) for realism commits the base-rate neglect fallacy. I argue that it does not. In general, one commits a base-rate fallacy only when one has access to the relevant base rate. And in the case of scientific realism, we lack access to the relevant base rate. The most natural attempt to save the base-rate objection from this reply leads to unwelcome consequences. However, this dialectic leads to a legitimate concern about the NMA. I conclude by sketching a new type of No-Miracles-style argument, which avoids this concern.
