Scientific Realism or Antirealism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-04-2017, 12:54 PM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(24-04-2017 12:15 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I think after the death of logical positivism, almost all scientists switched to a view of realism. And that has carried on a bit today. With the revival of antirealism, many have switched back, but there are plenty of realists still in the field of science.

Maybe "over there" they have time to navel-gaze. Big Grin
99.999 % of the scientists WHO ACTUALLY WORK all day at it, wouldn't even KNOW the definitions of those positions, much less feel compelled to take a position on ANY of them.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
24-04-2017, 12:54 PM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(22-04-2017 06:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-04-2017 10:06 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  The issue with philosophy, as I see it, is that it isn't utilitarian. You can mind fuck yourself from here till the end of time with it but in the end someone still has to get up from the couch and do the laundry.

Ah, but who? And Why? Consider

Remind me not to come and visit if you’re going to look like this.

[Image: hqdefault.jpg]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2017, 12:59 PM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(24-04-2017 12:51 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  I don't at all mean to be insulting. I'm trying to help.

I've been less than professional and charitable before and I apologise.

Basically what I'm says is that "Reality can't behave a certain way because that doesn't make sense to me" is an argument from incredulity. We've all done it at some point, I'm sure.

You're completely fine. It's certainly true that science has done a fantastic job of separating itself from what is intuitively thought to be true. But I think there's a certain level of knowledge that is only known by inherently or intuitively. These types of knowledge would be formulated as postulates or axioms.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2017, 12:59 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2017 01:02 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(24-04-2017 12:14 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  But we don't have certainty about reality, or how it works, ever.
If reality is not independent of consciousness (and really, how can it be?; for that matter, why should it be?) we have a chance.

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. ... We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."
[Image: planck_zpsiujkbqkz.gif]
(24-04-2017 12:51 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  Basically what I'm says is that "Reality can't behave a certain way because that doesn't make sense to me" is an argument from incredulity.

Same for many of the arguments for a reality independent of consciousness. Just because we can't imagine how that could be don't make it wrong.

(24-04-2017 11:45 AM)DLJ Wrote:  "I am he
As you are he
As you are me
And we are all together"

"Umpa, umpa, stick it up your jumper ... goo goo goo joob"
[Image: lennon_zpsqkdnetle.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2017, 03:39 PM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
I want to give you kudos Nails for picking up where I dropped the ball in my vid. I said that we count two things and we get three. It should have been one and another one. I'd made the mistake of using the conclusion I was calling into question.

Of course, I'm not saying our seemingly bulletproof arithmetic ever will fail us, just that we can't know it won't.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2017, 04:06 PM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
We must be careful what we mean by reality, also. We live our whole life inside a virtual version of reality, which is the product of our brains. That's not the same as any potential objective reality from which our senses are drawing information. The latter will always be out of our grasp, it seems to me. Our own reality is, instead, generated by our brain/consciousness. And so it's very much not independent from it.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
24-04-2017, 07:01 PM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(24-04-2017 04:06 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  We must be careful what we mean by reality, also. We live our whole life inside a virtual version of reality, which is the product of our brains. That's not the same as any potential objective reality from which our senses are drawing information. The latter will always be out of our grasp, it seems to me. Our own reality is, instead, generated by our brain/consciousness. And so it's very much not independent from it.

Yes, but I find the more interesting question to be is there an objective reality which exists independent of our collective consciousness? Where "exists", "our" and "collective" and "consciousness" lead to interesting questions of their own.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
24-04-2017, 08:30 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2017 08:48 PM by Robvalue.)
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
It is interesting for sure. It seems to me that it's beyond our ability to determine. Things would seem the same our end whether there is something there doing it, or not.

If we somehow find a way of answering this question, it will be huge.

I thought of something we already know about which may break our addition system: dealing with relative speeds. I'm not totally sure how this works as I haven't studied relativity that much, but I remember hearing that it's impossible to have a relative speed above c. So the normal calculation for the relative impact speed of two objects traveling at say 0.75c towards each other would produce 1.5c, but in reality it caps at c.

Other bizarre situations regarding parts of reality we may never become aware of where our simple addition rules fail are very hard to imagine, I'll grant you. We tend to just answer the question in the abstract and proclaim it to be true, because we're so used to it always being true. But we can do that all day and we haven't shown anything about reality. We can't disprove the possibility of it happening, because we can't conceivably set up every possible scenario there could ever be and check our model still works. (Say it turns out there is a maximum mass M anything can have. Then similarly adding 0.75M to 0.75M would produce a mass in the collective object of a non-intuitive 1M. So again 0.75+0.75=1 when applied blindly.)

There's no need to be able to check universally, of course. This is just a pedantic point to show why science doesn't make statements of certainty. Until such time as we encounter problem areas, and our models produce useful results, we keep using them. Of course we'd take any opportunity to refine them. Finding out ways they don't work is extremely important, because it's one of the best ways to improve the models. It's hard to do so without contrary data to consider.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
25-04-2017, 03:25 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
I realize I've been rather overstating my case lately and need to take a humility pill.

Please treat everything I've said with the preface, "This is how things seem to me", if I haven't explicitly said that. I'm as prone to getting things totally wrong as anyone else.

I'm kinda fucked in the head at the moment so I apologize if I've been rude to anyone or have been writing drivel.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
25-04-2017, 09:36 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
Right now I'm taking the opportunity to research feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. I'll use my research for a school project. I'm finding that feminists tend to emphasize subjectivity in knowers quite a bit. They seem to suggest that the scientific method and scientific inquiry are aimed towards masculine cognitive styles and values.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: