Scientific Realism or Antirealism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-04-2017, 05:42 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 02:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  The guy is a philosopher. Philosophers in my experience aren't very practical.

Some philosophers tie themselves in verbal knots so they can impress us with how they escape, Houdini-style. They want us to participate in the act by coming up to the stage, but I typically decline the offer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thoreauvian's post
21-04-2017, 05:53 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
No one can be just a philosopher and maintain any link to reality, in my opinion. You have to be able to use some vaguely scientific method, or else rely on other people's scientific findings. Otherwise all you can ever do is wallow in the abstract.

Even morality requires some basic science, to properly evaluate the outcomes of actions at least.

The problem is that people often don't recognize they are using scientific-style methods. Anyone who approaches reality without it would be utterly useless in every regard. They'd be in a constant state of total ignorance, as if they were new-born. Their actions would just be wild flailings, regardless of their intentions; or else they'd be paralyzed.

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
21-04-2017, 06:07 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 01:32 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Is this guy a troll or not? Thanks to Poe's Law, I really can't tell. I'll assume not for the purposes of this message.

No... I'm not. Again, how is my asking for people's views about philosophy representative of trolling behavior? I simply don't understand where you're getting this.

Quote:I apologise if I've been too rough. It may be that you genuinely believe everything you are typing. I hope you can see that I find it hard to believe when you literally switch your claims to the exact opposite of what you've been saying before.

WHEN? EXAMPLES? Stop asserting things about me if you're not going to back them up. Jesus Christ, what is the matter with you?

Quote:They are, again, extreme positions. Your problem, if you ever choose to accept it, is that you see everything in binary terms. Wrong, or right. Absolutely true, or uselessly false. Perfect or totally flawed. I don't know how you ended up with this very theist-like mindset, but I hope one day that you're able to discard the dogma that is holding you back. You have all the pieces of the puzzle. You have the intelligence to put them together. But you don't like the picture on the box, so you're forever trying to ram pieces in where they don't fit.

What are you talking about? BE SPECIFIC. GIVE EXAMPLES.

Quote:Sure, in an abstract system of our design, or one we use to model reality, we can force things to be binary. No problem. But the user error you constantly refer to means that our link between our models and reality itself is always tenuous. So insisiting on absolute positions dooms you to waste your time forever. Sure, it would be nice if we could have certainty, and nice neat answers to reality. But we can't, simple as that. We either accept this, or retreat into fantasy. By doing the second, no practical results will ever emerge. No truth about reality will be learned either.

You're either realist or antirealist... it's that simple. Of course you could go more in depth in either view. There are plenty of different realist and antirealist positions each with their own strengths and weaknesses. But I don't have time to address all of those. So I gave a brief explanation of the two leading positions: general realism and constructive empiricism. What is the problem with that?

Quote:I'll make this my last message to you, as I've tried everything I can possibly think of to have meaningful discourse and it hasn't worked. Best of luck in the future.

This is you trying to have meaningful discourse? I open a thread asking whether people think science aims at truth or it arrives at truth and the first thing you do is call me an anti-science troll based on NOTHING. The second thing you do is say talk about how science is a collective effort, something EVERYONE knows, not to mention that it had NOTHING to do with the topic. Then the third thing you do is ignore all my replies about specific examples of me trolling or being anti-science and double-down on me being a troll. Again... what is the matter with you?

"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
21-04-2017, 06:10 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(20-04-2017 02:50 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Predictive success and empirical adequacy don't necessitate truth. But truth is not necessarily required to adopt a theory.

Examples ?
Theories get "tested" not adopted.
Quote:Predictive success and empirical adequacy don't necessitate truth.

Facepalm

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
21-04-2017, 06:16 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 02:07 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  First i put up a lenghty and detailed danswer, then i decided it/he is not worth the effort. So, welcome to my ignore list Naelis.

As far as i am concerned i am not bothered anymore by him trying to piss at everybody and everything that disagrees with his black-and-white-100%true-or-nothing-i-define-reality-for-my-own-likings garbage.

He can sit all day in his armchair and keep on wanking, i wont watch this anymore. I have better things to do.

I'm so confused by this forum. There's another thread where someone asked for source material on Free will vs Determinism. They briefly gave their view on either view and then opened the chat. Many responded by saying compatibilism was a viable option too and that his binary setup was wrong. But no one calls him a troll. I do the exact same thing, but with a different issue in philosophy. I present two main views in the philosophy of science and then ask people about their thoughts. Now instead of people finding other views to show that my binary setup is false, I get lectured about being a troll who can't help but "piss at everybody and everything that disagrees". I'm actually at a loss here. What in the flying fuck did I do in this thread to suggest that I am a troll? What did I do in this thread to make people think I was mad at people who disagree with me? I opened the thread for input for fuck's sake. Can someone please explain to me what I did to warrant this type of response?

"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
21-04-2017, 06:20 AM (This post was last modified: 21-04-2017 06:27 AM by Naielis.)
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism

"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
21-04-2017, 06:22 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 05:53 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  No one can be just a philosopher and maintain any link to reality, in my opinion. You have to be able to use some vaguely scientific method, or else rely on other people's scientific findings. Otherwise all you can ever do is wallow in the abstract.

Even morality requires some basic science, to properly evaluate the outcomes of actions at least.

The problem is that people often don't recognize they are using scientific-style methods. Anyone who approaches reality without it would be utterly useless in every regard. They'd be in a constant state of total ignorance, as if they were new-born. Their actions would just be wild flailings, regardless of their intentions; or else they'd be paralyzed.

Science is not separate from philosophy. It is a method that has foundations in philosophy.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
21-04-2017, 06:30 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 06:16 AM)Naielis Wrote:  ...
Can someone please explain to me what I did to warrant this type of response?

When you joined the TTA party, you forgot to wipe your feet and muddied the carpet.

It's a crime from which few can recover.

Although some have.

The detergent is in the cupboard under the sink.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
21-04-2017, 06:37 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 06:30 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(21-04-2017 06:16 AM)Naielis Wrote:  ...
Can someone please explain to me what I did to warrant this type of response?

When you joined the TTA party, you forgot to wipe your feet and muddied the carpet.

It's a crime from which few can recover.

Although some have.

The detergent is in the cupboard under the sink.

Wink

That's exactly what I thought. Enter with a fallacious argument for theism no one cares what you do from then on. At least I have some confirmation that there's nothing wrong with this thread. I was so surprised by the responses. It was just utterly mind-boggling. As of right now, I've been ignored by someone here because of this thread, a thread where I simply ask for input on an issue... astounding.

"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
21-04-2017, 06:42 AM
RE: Scientific Realism or Antirealism
(21-04-2017 06:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-04-2017 02:50 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Predictive success and empirical adequacy don't necessitate truth. But truth is not necessarily required to adopt a theory.

Examples ?
Theories get "tested" not adopted.
Quote:Predictive success and empirical adequacy don't necessitate truth.

Facepalm

I think my first response to this got was lost. Anyway, adopted refers to the point at which a scientist believes a theory. The constructive empiricist claims that one should adopt a theory under the condition that it is empirically adequate. This of course requires testing as you said. But empirical adequacy is in no way final. And what is the problem with my statement about predictive success and empirical adequacy? In other words, why are you facepalming?

"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: