Provides an analysis of four different pessimistic inductions from the history of science, including (i) Putnam's *meta-induction*, which is a staright induction from the history of science, (ii) Laudan's argument, which has been reconstructed as a reductio ad absurdum by his realist criticis, (iii) realist pessimistic inductions which aim to determine the limits of our realist commitments, and (iv) Stanford's recent new induction from the history of science, the Argument from Unconceived Alternatives. Reviews the arguments against each, and provides an assessment of how the argumenst could be made stronger or what evidence might be gathered in support of them.