A Very Brief Introduction to the Philosophy of Science

Enjoy!

http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/file/213/Phil_128-Week_13_Ultimate_Argument.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_empiricism

http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405106795_chunk_g978...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bas
• C.
• Van
• Fraassen
• philosophy
• of
• science
• constructive
• empiricism
• anti
• realism
• positivism

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

great vid

I'm definitely a non-revisionary scientific anti-realist on your classification.

I do grant ontological status to unobservables - but what I mean by that probably best fits with anti-realism. If you want to say that an electron exists, say, one that left a trail in a cloud chamber, then I say "fine, it exists." But in saying that, I'm granting no more than that it's correct to say "it exists" within the context of the scientific theory - not that it exists in some "true" sense.

[WayOfTheBastard]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo You've got exactly. Well said!

[mikevsamuel]

Why is the concept of an "unobservable" necessary? Given that ones senses are imperfect, why assume a qualitative distinction between phenomena observed using senses and those observed using instruments? And isn't the distinction subjective? If I need glasses and you don't, are there not things which are observable for you that are unobservable for me?

[WayOfTheBastard]

@GypsyPoetMusician Thanks :)

[bonnie43uk]

I've got William Lane Craig on the phone, .. can you take the call???

[RuinSonic]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo I think what your talking about dates back to Kant and earlier philosophers. We know something exists how it appears to us but we can't know what it is in itself. I think I agree with that. When you talk about what something is you put labels and categories and place attributes on it. We never know everything about any object in reality. It's just many attributes and mental constructs that describe it or how it appears and effects us.

[RuinSonic]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo Actually I should say among western philosophers. I don't know how much different it is with the east.

So with your skepticism of the electron are you skeptical of all metaphysical claims or do you just claim to not be sure about all of them? I mean I am pretty confident certain metaphysical claims in science are correct and I could be wrong, but I wouldn't call myself skeptical about them.

[RuinSonic]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo I don't think I'd call myself an anti-realist because it's not just doubt about the nature of observed phenomenon but the doubt that there is any objective reality behind it or that we can know any of it objectively. At least that's kind of the idea I'm getting from reading a little about anti-realism.

A lot of videos on quantum theory seem to be very anti-realist leaning from videos I've seen, but among philosophers the large majority are realists.

[RuinSonic]

@WayOfTheBastard I guess I'd say I have anti-realism tenancies when it comes to science and morality. I definitely think we can get closer to describing something that is objectively out there but I think people are too quick to think they know the essence of reality and how it works.

In the case of morality I don't think there's anything out there. I think the objectivity can only come from the truth value of the statements being made about acting based on people's values.

[WayOfTheBastard]

@RuinSonic Denying or being agnostic about the metaphysics of a theory is EXACTLY what anti-realism entails. You've got it ruinsonic.

[RuinSonic]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo I'm not familiar enough with the anti-realist position but are you typical to the view? My idea of anti-realism is mainly an attack about the metaphysical aspects of a viewpoint. Of course if I listened to WLC anti-realism would be denying that any scientific idea is no more valid than another science we cannot know anything. I really wonder if WLC honestly believes the stuff he says, is lying, or wants to stretch the truth into complete straw man arguments.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

I also agree that many scientists are anti-realists. I think that's largely a consequence of quantum weirdness. The double-slit experiment, indistinguishability of identical particles, etc, make it hard to be a realist. However, my objections to realism would hold even in an 18th century Newtonian clockwork universe. In a nutshell: since identical theories (in empirical prediction) can make different ontic claims, only human preference distinguishes them - this situation can't be escaped

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

I agree with your "I think an electron exists as well as we can convey attributes or features that correspond to our perceptions of something that is going on objectively in the real world." The "as well as we can convey" part is where my anti-realism shows up. I agree that reality reveals something independent of our human contructions when an electron is detected in the lab. My anti-realism comes from noting that how we describe that something is necessarily a human construction.