A Philosophical Realist is an Empirical Idealist

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a relevant discussion related to the above;

I'm obviously a realist.

Nope! not so fast.
You are not a realist per se, but rather a Philosophical Realist which is a bastardized form of philosophical views.

Btw, I claimed to be an Empirical Realist which is more realistic and can be justified evidentially and philosophically. An empirical realist stance is where the empirical co-entangle with the brain/mind and self/ego as a whole. What-is [reality as it is] in this case is not mind-independent.

Among other issues, idealists, who seem literally stuck in an infantile stage of development/understanding, conflate how we know something with what we know.
What we know isn't the same thing as how we know it.

You need to understand the term 'idealism'.

Idealism is the philosophical view that is related to mental-philosophical-ideas.

You are definitely ignorant you are an idealist, i.e. an empirical idealist, because what is empirical to you is confined to your mind/brain only. In your empirical idealism, what-is is independent of your brain/mind. The only way you are in touch with reality is via philosophically-mental-ideas - thus idealism.

The sense of the external independent world is critically necessary for survival but it should not be clung dogmatically like that with Philosophical Realism.
Philosophical Realism aka Empirical Idealism which not realistic nor tenable is more of an ideological, dogmatic and emotional stance rather than dealing with real philosophy proper.

And talk about ignorance, you're ignorant that empirical claims are not provable. (Re "prove to me ontic facts exist in themselves . . . ")

I am aware, empirical claims are not deductive but rather inferential.

I am also aware of the limitation of empirical claims, i.e. scientific truth, which according to Popper are merely 'polished conjectures'. But such scientific truths or facts are the best and most credible we have which has highest utility values [while mindful of its negatives].

At present I am reading the following book;

• THE FATE OF ANALYSIS
  Analytic Philosophy From Frege To The Ash Heap of History
  by Robert Hanna

The philosophical realists' views [especially Analytic Philosophy] are among that historical heap-of-ashes and the Philosophical Realists are ignorant of it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The supporting reference of the above views are from Kant [mine];

The Transcendental Idealist is, therefore, an Empirical Realist, and allows to Matter, as Appearance, a Reality which does not permit of being inferred, but is Immediately Perceived.

Transcendental Realism [Philosophical Realism], on the other hand, inevitably falls into difficulties, and finds itself obliged to give way to Empirical Idealism, in that it regards the Objects of Outer Sense as something distinct from the Senses themselves, treating mere Appearances as Self-Subsistent Beings, existing outside us.
CPR - A371

[Terrapin Station]

Nope! not so fast.
You are not a realist per se, but rather a Philosophical Realist

Oy vey. We're on a philosophy board, and the comment is in the context of a discussion of realism vs idealism or antirealism re ontology. There's no need to add this clarification.

which is a bastardized form of philosophical views.

What is that supposed to refer to, exactly?

Because of your reply style, I'm going to the "one thing at a time" mode with you. So I'll let you address the above first.

[Skepdick]

Oy vey. We're on a philosophy board, and the comment is in the context of a discussion of realism vs idealism or antirealism re ontology.

Are you a realist with respect to Einstein's ontology?

"Matter tells space how to curve and space tells matter how to move". Do space and matter obtain ontologically?

Are you a realist with respect to the fields of Quantum Field Theory? Do quantum fields obtain ontologically?

Because if you are, you are going to have to either resolve the ontological incompatibilities of the two; or reject one or both ontologies.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope! not so fast.
You are not a realist per se, but rather a Philosophical Realist

Oy vey. We're on a philosophy board, and the comment is in the context of a discussion of realism vs idealism or antirealism re ontology. There's no need to add this clarification.

which is a bastardized form of philosophical views.

What is that supposed to refer to, exactly?

Because of your reply style, I'm going to the "one thing at a time" mode with you. So I'll let you address the above first.

It is your discretion and mine as well.

My point is, don't use the term 'idealist' [often pejoratively by many] hastily when you do not understand its full implications within philosophy.

As for 'bastardized' note

• Bastardize:
  1: to reduce from a higher to a lower state or condition : DEBASE
  2: ...... ... [not applicable]
  3: to modify especially by introducing discordant or disparate elements
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bastardize

I am asserting Philosophical Realism or Empirical Idealism, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
is a debased bastardized view of reality [proximate], especially when Empirical Idealists [mind independent reality] condemn Empirical Realist as delving into mind-dependent nonsense.

The challenge is for you as an Idealist, i.e. Empirical Idealist aka Philosophical Realist aka Transcendental Realist to demonstrate such philosophical views are ultimately realistic as claimed, i.e.

• [Philosophical] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

In the philosophical community, here is Kant's challenge to empirical idealists aka philosophical realists' to prove their claims of an independent external world;

... it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General
that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.
CPR -Bxxxix

In response the above challenge from Kant, Moore tried and failed with his
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand

Wittgenstein countered Moore's proof;

Ludwig Wittgenstein offered a subtle objection to Moore's argument in passage #554 of On Certainty (see below). Considering "I know..", he said "In its language-game it is not presumptuous ('nicht anmassend')," so that even if P implies Q, knowing P is true doesn't necessarily entail Q. Moore has displaced "I know.." from its language-game and derived a fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_o ... nd_replies

In any case, there is no way for Empirical Idealists aka Philosophical Realists to prove reality exists absolutely independent of the human conditions - with their bastardized philosophical views.

The most realistic claims of reality is by the Empirical Realists [Kant, latter-Wittgenstein, and the likes], i.e. reality [all there is] is co-entangled with the human conditions.
This is not an easy perspective to apprehend as it require serious philosophical reflections and something like a "Necker Switch" [or Duck-Rabbit switch] to realize the other more realistic perspective.

[Age]

Oy vey. We're on a philosophy board, and the comment is in the context of a discussion of realism vs idealism or antirealism re ontology.

Are you a realist with respect to Einstein's ontology?

"Matter tells space how to curve and space tells matter how to move". Do space and matter obtain ontologically?

Are you a realist with respect to the fields of Quantum Field Theory? Do quantum fields obtain ontologically?

Because if you are, you are going to have to either resolve the ontological incompatibilities of the two; or reject one or both ontologies.

But there is NO ACTUAL incompatibility.

There is only incompatibilities in YOUR MISINTERPRETATIONS of 'things'.

[Skepdick]

But there is NO ACTUAL incompatibility.

There is only incompatibilities in YOUR MISINTERPRETATIONS of 'things'.

Duh!

The incompatibility comes from humans confusing epistemology for ontology and projecting an "ontology" onto reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

[Age]

But there is NO ACTUAL incompatibility.

There is only incompatibilities in YOUR MISINTERPRETATIONS of 'things'.

Duh!

The incompatibility comes from humans confusing epistemology for ontology and projecting an "ontology" onto reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

But what IS thee ACTUAL 'reality', which 'you', "skepdick" speak of here?

When that is DISCOVERED and SEEN, then the ACTUAL MISINTERPRETATIONS you have been continual making hitherto can also be CLEARLY SEEN.

What is ALSO SEEN and KNOWN is WHERE the ACTUAL 'incompatibilities' you persist with LAY.

By the way, the FIRST ACTUAL MISINTERPRETATION, within that link you provided, is in the FIRST WORD; "mind", which is IDENTIFIED by the next two words. Until that is RECTIFIED, then rest is just ALL incompatible, REALLY.

But, one has to ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS so that they have, at least, some 'thing' to RELATE ALL-OF-THIS back to.

By the way, what do 'you', "skepdick" RELATE your VIEWS and INTERPRETATIONS back to, EXACTLY?

[Skepdick]

But what IS thee ACTUAL 'reality', which 'you', "skepdick" speak of here?

The one Terrapin Station is talking about. I am an anti-realist. He is a realist.

When that is DISCOVERED and SEEN, then the ACTUAL MISINTERPRETATIONS you have been continual making hitherto can also be CLEARLY SEEN.

The misinterpretation you are making is being seen right now.

What is ALSO SEEN and KNOWN is WHERE the ACTUAL 'incompatibilities' you persist with LAY.

I know where they lay. In epistemology, not in ontology.

But, one has to ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS so that they have, at least, some 'thing' to RELATE ALL-OF-THIS back to.

Good luck with that.

Terrapin Station is the "realist" he is after the "actual truth of things". He is after ontology. He is a philosopher.
I am the anti-realist. I am after the useful interpretations. Epistemology. I am a scientist.

By the way, what do 'you', "skepdick" RELATE your VIEWS and INTERPRETATIONS back to, EXACTLY?

The same thing you relate yours to.

[Age]

But what IS thee ACTUAL 'reality', which 'you', "skepdick" speak of here?

The one Terrapin Station is talking about. I am an anti-realist. He is a realist.

So, what IS the 'reality', which you CLAIM "terrapin station" is allegedly talking about?

When that is DISCOVERED and SEEN, then the ACTUAL MISINTERPRETATIONS you have been continual making hitherto can also be CLEARLY SEEN.

The misinterpretation you are making is being seen right now.

And 'WHAT', EXACTLY, is 'that' "misinterpretaion", which you CLAIM I am making and is being seen RIGHT NOW?

What is ALSO SEEN and KNOWN is WHERE the ACTUAL 'incompatibilities' you persist with LAY.

I know where they lay. In epistemology, not in ontology.

And what is YOUR 'interpretation' of the words 'epistemology' and 'ontology'?

But, one has to ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS so that they have, at least, some 'thing' to RELATE ALL-OF-THIS back to.

Good luck with that.

Terrapin Station is the "realist" he is after the "actual truth of things". He is after ontology. He is a philosopher.
I am the anti-realist. I am after the useful interpretations. Epistemology. I am a scientist.

You are after the, so called, "useful interpretations" of 'what', EXACTLY?

By the way, what do 'you', "skepdick" RELATE your VIEWS and INTERPRETATIONS back to, EXACTLY?

The same thing you relate yours to.

Which is 'what', EXACTLY, to you?

[Skepdick]

But what IS thee ACTUAL 'reality', which 'you', "skepdick" speak of here?

The one Terrapin Station is talking about. I am an anti-realist. He is a realist.

So, what IS the 'reality', which you CLAIM "terrapin station" is allegedly talking about?

When that is DISCOVERED and SEEN, then the ACTUAL MISINTERPRETATIONS you have been continual making hitherto can also be CLEARLY SEEN.

The misinterpretation you are making is being seen right now.

And 'WHAT', EXACTLY, is 'that' "misinterpretaion", which you CLAIM I am making and is being seen RIGHT NOW?

What is ALSO SEEN and KNOWN is WHERE the ACTUAL 'incompatibilities' you persist with LAY.

I know where they lay. In epistemology, not in ontology.

And what is YOUR 'interpretation' of the words 'epistemology' and 'ontology'?

But, one has to ALREADY KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS so that they have, at least, some 'thing' to RELATE ALL-OF-THIS back to.

Good luck with that.

Terrapin Station is the "realist" he is after the "actual truth of things". He is after ontology. He is a philosopher.
I am the anti-realist. I am after the useful interpretations. Epistemology. I am a scientist.

You are after the, so called, "useful interpretations" of 'what', EXACTLY?

By the way, what do 'you', "skepdick" RELATE your VIEWS and INTERPRETATIONS back to, EXACTLY?

The same thing you relate yours to.

Which is 'what', EXACTLY, to you?

Yes.

[Terrapin Station]

It is your discretion and mine as well.

My point is, don't use the term 'idealist' [often pejoratively by many] hastily when you do not understand its full implications within philosophy.

What are you basing your assessment of my understanding on?

[Skepdick]

What are you basing your assessment of my understanding on?

On your lack thereof.

--Book of pre-canned Philosophical responses, page 74

[bahman]

Right hat for the rights head. We can philosophize pure abstracts. Even incoherent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is your discretion and mine as well.

My point is, don't use the term 'idealist' [often pejoratively by many] hastily when you do not understand its full implications within philosophy.

What are you basing your assessment of my understanding on?

You should have followed the link in the OP to note your following pejorative statement;
at page 74:
viewtopic.php?p=494542#p494542

Among other issues, idealists, who seem literally stuck in an infantile stage of development/understanding, conflate how we know something with what we know. What we know isn't the same thing as how we know it.