Scientific Realism or Antirealism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-04-2017, 09:33 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(20-04-2017 08:25 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Scientific realism attempts to combine two claims:
1. Our thoughts and feelings about reality do not determine reality.
2. We can come to know things about reality.

Scientific realists hold that science aims at truth about reality and actually arrives at true theories. Theories are true about observable (to the unaided senses) and unobservable reality. This position is based on the first two claims. One main issue for the realist is that the two positions are at odds. If our thoughts and feelings don't determine things about the world, then the realist has to explain why we are able to come to know things about reality. Why are our senses at all reliable? Another main issue is to explain how science can arrive at truth about reality. Why does it follow that an empirically adequate theory describes true reality? How does the realist make this leap.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

The main antirealist position I've studied is constructive empiricism. In this view, science aims at truth about observable phenomena only. And it's important to note that aiming at truth doesn't mean arriving at truth. A constructive empiricist might say that the method aims at truth, but fails to arrive or affirm an arrival at the truth of a theory. Constructive empiricists want to rid science of metaphysics. The scientific realist claims that there are natural kinds and laws. This is a metaphysical position that the empiricist wants to avoid.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/const...mpiricism/

I'm not convinced either way. I'm open to hearing both arguments. And any helpful books or links would be appreciated.

I think a good question to this is "if a tree falls when no ones around, does it make a sound?" The answer is yes.

A human doesn't have to be around a falling tree to hear it make a sound, because it is going to make one anyway.

Same with the universe, the universe was around before life was even a thing, and it will be around even if our species goes extinct and another species fills our niche.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
20-04-2017, 09:50 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
I'd forgive him and go easier if this was his first topic. For those new to the forum, this is not the case. This is the latest in a series of utterly dishonest posts, and this one flies in the face of even his own previous dishonesty.

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
20-04-2017, 09:51 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(20-04-2017 08:25 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Scientific realism attempts to combine two claims:
1. Our thoughts and feelings about reality do not determine reality.
2. We can come to know things about reality.

Scientific realists hold that science aims at truth about reality and actually arrives at true theories. Theories are true about observable (to the unaided senses) and unobservable reality. This position is based on the first two claims. One main issue for the realist is that the two positions are at odds. If our thoughts and feelings don't determine things about the world, then the realist has to explain why we are able to come to know things about reality.

That is an utter non sequitur. Our brains create models of reality, not reality.

Quote:Why are our senses at all reliable?

Because evolution.

Quote:Another main issue is to explain how science can arrive at truth about reality. Why does it follow that an empirically adequate theory describes true reality? How does the realist make this leap.

Straw man. Scientific theories are provisional, not absolute.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Chas's post
20-04-2017, 10:16 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
The scientific method is exactly how we make sure our senses aren't pulling a fast one on us. We remove all subjectivity as far as possible. Anyone who thinks scientific theories come about by one scientist reporting what they find and that's it, hasn't the first clue how science works.

Of course, we could all just be part of one big delusion/unreality. But even then, the results of science based off our collective senses demonstrably models this "reality" well, whatever it may be or not be. Ultimately it doesn't matter what it is.

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
20-04-2017, 11:21 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(20-04-2017 08:36 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(20-04-2017 08:31 AM)unfogged Wrote:  You've done a bait-and-switch

Sorry I think I was misleading in the first formulation. I edited it, but for clarification, this means that the content of our thoughts does not determine what is true about reality. Kuhn thought this claim was false because he thought reality only made sense in terms of paradigms. Any given claim could be true or false according to the paradigm, but there is no reality above paradigms. Scientific realists think this places too much power in the observer and I'm inclined to agree.

The facts of reality determine whether the contents of our consciousness are true. Concepts, propositions, theories....reality is how we judge whether or not these are true.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
20-04-2017, 11:41 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
It's "there are no paradigms above reality", not the reverse.
"Paradigms" is unnecessary. It's an unnecessary conceptual layer.

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
20-04-2017, 11:55 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(20-04-2017 08:48 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Scientific knowledge is not claimed to be absolute. It's our best models of reality. So no, there is no problem.

If someone claims that it is absolute, then yeah, they are stupid.

What do you mean it is not absolute? The typical formulation of knowledge is the justified-true-belief. This implies that having knowledge of a given proposition requires it to be true. The question is whether science has any power to reach truth. If it can't reach truth at any juncture, then you have to explain why empirical adequacy is preferable to empirical inadequacy.

"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
20-04-2017, 12:02 PM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(20-04-2017 11:55 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(20-04-2017 08:48 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Scientific knowledge is not claimed to be absolute. It's our best models of reality. So no, there is no problem.

If someone claims that it is absolute, then yeah, they are stupid.

What do you mean it is not absolute? The typical formulation of knowledge is the justified-true-belief. This implies that having knowledge of a given proposition requires it to be true. The question is whether science has any power to reach truth. If it can't reach truth at any juncture, then you have to explain why empirical adequacy is preferable to empirical inadequacy.

Take the word "empirical" out of your final statement and you will see how silly it is. It is a "no-brainer" that adequacy is preferable to inadequacy, no matter what qualifier you want to stick in front of it.

Given that our "knowledge" of the external world is filtered through our senses (plus whatever instruments we can invent to aid our senses) and our understanding, both of which are inherently fallible, it could never be absolute. In the strict sense, it could never even be "knowledge". Empirical adequacy is the best we can hope for, and it's good enough. It works, however much you may dislike that concept. It's useful. It has allowed us to design all kinds of useful tools and machines; it has allowed us to cure diseases and lengthen our lifespans; it has allowed us to send space probes all over the solar system, and have those probes reach their destinations (which are millions of miles away, and in motion). That's pretty impressive. Is the science behind it "true"? "Absolutely" true? Who cares? It's good enough to be useful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Grasshopper's post
20-04-2017, 12:11 PM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(20-04-2017 08:58 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  You have to be trolling us, this is ridiculous. I don't know why I'm even replying to you, but here you are anyway.

I'm convinced that you have no idea what I'm saying half the time because I can't believe you would think I'm a troll.

Quote:You're the one who has been constantly claiming to able to project your "certainty" onto reality.

What does it mean to project certainty onto reality? When I claim certainty, I do it as an epistemological position. I'm claiming that there are certain beliefs that can be known infallibly. For example, the beliefs "I exist" or "I am conscious" are known infallibly. I place no certainty on the working of science. It is an empirical method based on models. You're so confused about what I'm saying that you can't accurately pin down what I'm talking about in certain subjects.

Quote:So you're entirely guilty of what you're complaining about.

What? Guilty of WHAT? What am I complaining about? This is the philosophy thread so I thought I would pose a hot topic in philosophy and get some responses. I represented two opposing views in the philosophy of science very briefly and gave links to more in-depth papers on them. I'm not complaining about anything. You totally misinterpreted my aim and worse than that, you let previous arguments you've had with me skew your reading of this thread. Stop worrying about what sin I've committed and present some information about the topic if you have anything to contribute.

Quote:At the same time, you've previously attacked science for the very reason that it isn't absolute knowledge.

Are you serious? I've never once in my life "attacked" science. I've stated mutiple times that science is not able to stand alone without axioms to support it, but that is hardly an attack. That's true of all worldviews or methods.

Quote: So unless you're referring to a few crazy fringe scientists who think their science can dictate reality, you're again arguing with no one.

I wasn't trying to argue with anyone. I was trying to get people's opinion on an interesting topic in the philosophy of science. And there are PLENTY of realists and antirealists among both scientists and philosophers of science. Don't make statements that are obviously false.

Quote:You're just trying to throw mud at science because your own ideas have no merit whatsoever and you think you can slip them in by default.

WHAT? What on earth are you talking about? This thread is not throwing mud at science. READ THE POST. I'm asking people whether they take a realist or antirealist approach to the philosophy of science. How could you possibly bend your brain enough to read my post as an attack on science?

Quote:If you're not a troll, you're so far entrenched in your own dogma that you can't see the sun anymore.

WHAT DOGMA? What the fuck are you saying? I'm not bringing any argument. I'm not making any points. All I have done in this thread is post brief explanations of the two main views of science. And I specifically said that I'm not convinced either way. I never once thought I would be called a troll for simply presenting two opposing views. Jesus fucking Christ.

"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
20-04-2017, 12:22 PM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(20-04-2017 12:02 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Take the word "empirical" out of your final statement and you will see how silly it is. It is a "no-brainer" that adequacy is preferable to inadequacy, no matter what qualifier you want to stick in front of it.

Well it's a bit more complicated than that. We can't appeal to mere definition without looking at context.

Quote:Given that our "knowledge" of the external world is filtered through our senses (plus whatever instruments we can invent to aid our senses) and our understanding, both of which are inherently fallible, it could never be absolute. In the strict sense, it could never even be "knowledge". Empirical adequacy is the best we can hope for, and it's good enough. It works, however much you may dislike that concept. It's useful. It has allowed us to design all kinds of useful tools and machines; it has allowed us to cure diseases and lengthen our lifespans; it has allowed us to send space probes all over the solar system, and have those probes reach their destinations (which are millions of miles away, and in motion). That's pretty impressive. Is the science behind it "true"? "Absolutely" true? Who cares? It's good enough to be useful.

So you would take a constructive empiricist view? I don't know what is meant by absolute here though. Are you referring to the truth of a theory or the justification? If you mean infallible knowledge, then I think science obviously can't achieve that. But can it assign truth values to theories.

"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: