Analyze the logical structure of the argument provided below.
'Scientific theories are often praised for their predictive power, yet the ability of a theory to yield accurate predictions does not guarantee its fundamental truth. Consider that historically, many theories that produced highly accurate predictions were later found to be based on entirely false ontological premises. Because predictive success can be achieved through models that merely happen to align with observable data by coincidence, empirical adequacy is merely a pragmatic virtue. If empirical adequacy does not entail truth, we must reject the notion that a theory's predictive success provides conclusive evidence that it accurately describes the underlying reality of the universe. Therefore, scientific realism—the belief that our best scientific theories are true descriptions of nature—is fundamentally flawed.'
Arrange the following statements in the exact logical sequence that the author uses to build the argument, starting from the foundational empirical premise and culminating in the ultimate main conclusion.
- 1Historical evidence demonstrates that theoretical models can yield highly accurate predictions despite relying on incorrect assumptions about the nature of reality.
- 2The alignment between a theory's predictions and observable data can occur coincidentally rather than as a result of the theory's structural accuracy.
- 3The predictive success of a scientific model cannot be taken as definitive proof that the model accurately captures the underlying nature of the universe.
- 4The doctrine of scientific realism, which posits that successful scientific theories are true descriptions of reality, is ultimately untenable.