Is P. 'Realism' Imperative for Science?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Is P. 'Realism' Imperative for Science?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

In my discussions with Conde Lucanor, he insisted realism [philosophical] and materialism is imperative for Science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
One among the main points to address is that whenever you wish to deny the proofs of a real underlying objective reality, you are forced to reject science.
Since that does not make your position look very good, you have to devise a workaround for taking out the realism from modern science, which is still the same as denying it altogether.
viewtopic.php?p=514173#p514173
I don't agree with the above, in that Science is an independent field of knowledge that is independent from philosophy and its ism-s.

Do you agree with that realism [philosophical] and materialism is imperative for Science?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is P. 'Realism' Imperative for Science?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 4:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:19 am Science don't give a damn with philosophical realism nor anti-realism.
Nonsense. Science only works with realism, otherwise we would not be conceding that Thomson discovered the actual existence of the electron, only that he came up with a theoretical framework where a thing called the electron made sense. Actually that's what pre-modern science and philosophy of nature used to do.
That is only your personal and the realists' views, thus has to be bias.
As I had argued, where realism is invoked in science, it is merely taken as a assumption and not a scientific fact nor first principle.
In other cases, there is no need for such an assumption and science can rely on the Scientific Framework and empirical evidences.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is P. 'Realism' Imperative for Science?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Thu Jun 24, 2021 2:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Note it is an evolutionary default that ALL living things [since the first one-celled living things to the complex human beings] are 'programmed' to focus their attention what is outside and external to them, i.e. to look for food, look out for threats and partners to reproduce the next generations.

That was where philosophical realism of the external world and scientific realism sprang from, i.e. common sense from an evolutionary default.
But you forgot that human beings are the only living thing since the beginning that has the ability for self-reflection and intelligence to look and redirect its attention from the default outward and external world to backward and inward into its own body, mind and consciousness.
You're explicitly stating that scientific realism sprang directly from the pre-theoretical, common sense view of the world. That's absolute nonsense.
The common sense view has been around for millennia, accompanying religion and philosophy all along, while modern science has been around since only a few hundred years ago.
Scientific realism came up in the 20th century after Logical Positivism, after the long period of about 4 centuries relying on our "ability for self-reflection and intelligence", which included several crisis in philosophy and religion, and the remarkable success of natural sciences.
There you go again with your Strawman.

My emphasis is realism* [of an external independent reality] is an evolutionary default i.e. right back to the first one-celled entities. Common sense realism is merely one phase of realism.
*Note the term "realism" [[of an external independent reality]] is hijacked by philosophical realists for the own interests and do not necessary represent "what is reality" [really real] as such.

The sense of "an external independent reality" is primordial and is embedded as inherent, thus this inherent sense would not have changed even its essence though it is present in modern science which is very recent human activity. [note science (etymologically 'to know') is also primordial].

But since evolution and progress is inevitable, it is very natural there are changes and improvement to the primordial sense of realism ["an external independent reality"] with the advent of anti-realistic views that are bringing in greater positive contributions to humanity.

Note and read the following progress [addition of anti-realistic views to Science] to scientific realism; Thus for you to confine Science to merely the primordial default of realism ["an external independent reality"] exposed your ignorance.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: It is due to the later development of self-reflection that philosophers advanced from philosophical and scientific realism towards anti-realism which brought about positive contributions that are 100x better than realism.
Therefore effective anti-realism is always one-up on philosophical realism.
Anti-realism is just what is still left of the decaying body of traditional philosophy, which started dying right after the scientific revolution began. That's why the only way forward in philosophy is materialism, the only ontology compatible with science.
Note my counter above i.e. where anti-realistic views to science is actually the way forward and progress for science.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: True, there are various views of anti-realism that are stupid and nonsensical, but those like empirical realism aka transcendental idealism and those associated with Quantum Mechanics are very positive and contributive to humanity.
Associating Quantum Mechanics to idealism is the worst thing that could happen to both science and philosophy. It's a door opened to charlatans like Deepak Chopra.
There you go again with your ignorance and cheap dogmatic thinking in bringing in Deepak Chopra.

There is so much writings on Idealism within Science in the positive note.
Here is a quickie, [.. I have downloaded it]

The Impact of Idealism
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/im ... 6C5CDDA502#:

Image
German Idealism is arguably the most influential force in philosophy over the past two hundred years.
This major four-volume work is the first comprehensive survey of its impact on science, religion, sociology and the humanities, and brings together fifty-two leading scholars from across Europe and North America.
Each essay discusses an idea or theme from Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Fichte, or another key figure, shows how this influenced a thinker or field of study in the subsequent two centuries, and how that influence is felt in contemporary thought. Crossing established scholarly divides, the volumes deal with fields as varied as feminism, architectural history, psychoanalysis, Christology and museum curation, and subjects as diverse as love, evolution, the public sphere, the art of Andy Warhol, the music of Palestrina, the philosophy of Husserl, the literature of Jane Austen, the political thought of fascism and the foundations of international law.;
Volume 1. Philosophy and natural sciences / edited by Karl Ameriks --
volume 2. Historical, social, and political thought / edited by John Walker --
volume 3. Aesthetics and literature / edited by Christoph Jamme and Ian D. Cooper --
volume 4. Religion / edited by Nicholas Adams.
Post Reply