Scientific Realism Assumes an Independent Objective Reality

[Veritas Aequitas]

I noted many scientists adopt the Scientific Realism position, i.e.

Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be.

Within philosophy of science, it is often framed as an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained?"
The debate over what the success of science involves centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories.
Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make reliable claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables.

Analytic philosophers generally have a commitment to scientific realism, in the sense of regarding the scientific method as a reliable guide to the nature of reality.

The main alternative to scientific realism is instrumentalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... ic_realism

The basis of Scientific Realism is based on Metaphysical Realism,

Metaphysical Realism maintains that "whatever exists does so, and has the properties and relations it does, independently of deriving its existence or nature from being thought of or experienced."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... al_realism

In general Scientific and Metaphysical Realism is reducible to Philosophical Realism,

[Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Note the above, tend to believe is actually 'make the assumption' there is a real objective reality which the Philosophical Realists are approximating with their verification and justification processes.

But the reality is, philosophical realists do not realize what they perceived, then verified and justified as real via a FSK, is merely at best polished conjectures which is an approximate to the presupposed objective reality out there.

It is thus by default, the 'supposedly real objective reality' which is that fact [feature of reality, states of affairs, that is the case] can NEVER ever be realizable as a real to the consciousness of humans.
For Kant, this supposed real objective reality which is independent of the human conditions is termed the thing-in-itself which Kant claimed is an illusion.

My claim, as with Philosophical anti-realist of the likes, is that "the supposedly real objective reality" which is assumed is merely an illusion in the mind of the philosophical realists.

My alternative to Scientific Realism is Instrumentalism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

My general position of reality is that of Empirical Realism, i.e.
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

For those who prefer Philosophical Realism and Scientific Realism,
show me the supposedly objective reality that is 'approximated-as-close as possible to reality' is really-real?
To me, that "presupposed objective reality" is merely an assumption, thus impossible to be really real.
This assumption is a condition within the scientific realist framework and system.

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

With reference to my point re;

From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

The objective reality that Scientific Realists assumed as objectively real [independent of human condition and conceptions]
would be located at the extreme edge on a fence between the 'No Man's Land' and 'La La Land.'

This is because the assumed objective reality [the illusion] of the scientific realists are related to science thus empirically-related [no man's land],
while
the assumed objective reality [the illusion], i.e. a God of the theologian is based solely from Pure Reason where the empirical elements are full-abstracted, thus confined to the la la land.

[Eodnhoj7]

I noted many scientists adopt the Scientific Realism position, i.e.

Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be.

Within philosophy of science, it is often framed as an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained?"
The debate over what the success of science involves centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories.
Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make reliable claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables.

Analytic philosophers generally have a commitment to scientific realism, in the sense of regarding the scientific method as a reliable guide to the nature of reality.

The main alternative to scientific realism is instrumentalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... ic_realism

The basis of Scientific Realism is based on Metaphysical Realism,

Metaphysical Realism maintains that "whatever exists does so, and has the properties and relations it does, independently of deriving its existence or nature from being thought of or experienced."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... al_realism

In general Scientific and Metaphysical Realism is reducible to Philosophical Realism,

[Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Note the above, tend to believe is actually 'make the assumption' there is a real objective reality which the Philosophical Realists are approximating with their verification and justification processes.

But the reality is, philosophical realists do not realize what they perceived, then verified and justified as real via a FSK, is merely at best polished conjectures which is an approximate to the presupposed objective reality out there.

It is thus by default, the 'supposedly real objective reality' which is that fact [feature of reality, states of affairs, that is the case] can NEVER ever be realizable as a real to the consciousness of humans.
For Kant, this supposed real objective reality which is independent of the human conditions is termed the thing-in-itself which Kant claimed is an illusion.

My claim, as with Philosophical anti-realist of the likes, is that "the supposedly real objective reality" which is assumed is merely an illusion in the mind of the philosophical realists.

My alternative to Scientific Realism is Instrumentalism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

My general position of reality is that of Empirical Realism, i.e.
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

For those who prefer Philosophical Realism and Scientific Realism,
show me the supposedly objective reality that is 'approximated-as-close as possible to reality' is really-real?
To me, that "presupposed objective reality" is merely an assumption, thus impossible to be really real.
This assumption is a condition within the scientific realist framework and system.

Views?

If something being "merely an assumption" presents itself as a problem due to this nature then give an example which is not an assumption.

Reality under its totality is not conditioned upon anything but itself. This totality of being contains within it observation with this observation being self contained as it is self referencing, there is nothing beyond observation as the intrinsic emptiness of observation itself is self assuming.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I noted many scientists adopt the Scientific Realism position, i.e.

Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be.

Within philosophy of science, it is often framed as an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained?"
The debate over what the success of science involves centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories.
Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make reliable claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables.

Analytic philosophers generally have a commitment to scientific realism, in the sense of regarding the scientific method as a reliable guide to the nature of reality.

The main alternative to scientific realism is instrumentalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... ic_realism

The basis of Scientific Realism is based on Metaphysical Realism,

Metaphysical Realism maintains that "whatever exists does so, and has the properties and relations it does, independently of deriving its existence or nature from being thought of or experienced."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... al_realism

In general Scientific and Metaphysical Realism is reducible to Philosophical Realism,

[Philosophical] Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Note the above, tend to believe is actually 'make the assumption' there is a real objective reality which the Philosophical Realists are approximating with their verification and justification processes.

But the reality is, philosophical realists do not realize what they perceived, then verified and justified as real via a FSK, is merely at best polished conjectures which is an approximate to the presupposed objective reality out there.

It is thus by default, the 'supposedly real objective reality' which is that fact [feature of reality, states of affairs, that is the case] can NEVER ever be realizable as a real to the consciousness of humans.
For Kant, this supposed real objective reality which is independent of the human conditions is termed the thing-in-itself which Kant claimed is an illusion.

My claim, as with Philosophical anti-realist of the likes, is that "the supposedly real objective reality" which is assumed is merely an illusion in the mind of the philosophical realists.

My alternative to Scientific Realism is Instrumentalism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

My general position of reality is that of Empirical Realism, i.e.
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

For those who prefer Philosophical Realism and Scientific Realism,
show me the supposedly objective reality that is 'approximated-as-close as possible to reality' is really-real?
To me, that "presupposed objective reality" is merely an assumption, thus impossible to be really real.
This assumption is a condition within the scientific realist framework and system.

Views?

If something being "merely an assumption" presents itself as a problem due to this nature then give an example which is not an assumption.

Scientific Realism makes an explicit assumption that there is objective reality [ontological] beyond empirical observations.

When scientists observed say an apple, they accept there is an observed empirical apple as a polished conjecture. There is no question of an assumed apple.

While realist scientists do not assumed there is an observed empirical-apple,
they however ASSUMEd there is an independent apple-of-objective reality out there, otherwise what are they observing at. This is not the empirical apple but the ontological-apple.

Reality under its totality is not conditioned upon anything but itself. This totality of being contains within it observation with this observation being self contained as it is self referencing, there is nothing beyond observation as the intrinsic emptiness of observation itself is self assuming.

Your above are merely playing with words without any representation of reality.
What 'observation' are you talking about?
Observation is done by the sense organs of humans, thus conditioned.

I believe when you state 'observation' it meant something else.
It is with reference to God's omniscience? if not what is that?

Suggest you use some other words than observation.

[Eodnhoj7]

I noted many scientists adopt the Scientific Realism position, i.e.



The basis of Scientific Realism is based on Metaphysical Realism,



In general Scientific and Metaphysical Realism is reducible to Philosophical Realism,



Note the above, tend to believe is actually 'make the assumption' there is a real objective reality which the Philosophical Realists are approximating with their verification and justification processes.

But the reality is, philosophical realists do not realize what they perceived, then verified and justified as real via a FSK, is merely at best polished conjectures which is an approximate to the presupposed objective reality out there.

It is thus by default, the 'supposedly real objective reality' which is that fact [feature of reality, states of affairs, that is the case] can NEVER ever be realizable as a real to the consciousness of humans.
For Kant, this supposed real objective reality which is independent of the human conditions is termed the thing-in-itself which Kant claimed is an illusion.

My claim, as with Philosophical anti-realist of the likes, is that "the supposedly real objective reality" which is assumed is merely an illusion in the mind of the philosophical realists.

My alternative to Scientific Realism is Instrumentalism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

My general position of reality is that of Empirical Realism, i.e.
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

For those who prefer Philosophical Realism and Scientific Realism,
show me the supposedly objective reality that is 'approximated-as-close as possible to reality' is really-real?
To me, that "presupposed objective reality" is merely an assumption, thus impossible to be really real.
This assumption is a condition within the scientific realist framework and system.

Views?

If something being "merely an assumption" presents itself as a problem due to this nature then give an example which is not an assumption.

Scientific Realism makes an explicit assumption that there is objective reality [ontological] beyond empirical observations.

When scientists observed say an apple, they accept there is an observed empirical apple as a polished conjecture. There is no question of an assumed apple.

While realist scientists do not assumed there is an observed empirical-apple,
they however ASSUMEd there is an independent apple-of-objective reality out there, otherwise what are they observing at. This is not the empirical apple but the ontological-apple.



1.The scientists are assuming their senses are correct.

2. Empirical observations are empty in themselves thus dependent upon a phenomenon beyond them.

Reality under its totality is not conditioned upon anything but itself. This totality of being contains within it observation with this observation being self contained as it is self referencing, there is nothing beyond observation as the intrinsic emptiness of observation itself is self assuming.

Your above are merely playing with words without any representation of reality.



False, the totality of reality is not condition upon any other reality in itself. Reality is absolute as existing thus necessitating absolute truths.
What 'observation' are you talking about?
Observation is done by the sense organs of humans, thus conditioned.

And as conditioned necessitate being existing beyond what is sensible thus not all truth is empirical. Dually one is observed as a phenomenon that is not limited to what is empirical.

I believe when you state 'observation' it meant something else.
It is with reference to God's omniscience? if not what is that?

Suggest you use some other words than observation.