Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

I find that most [not all] of those who opposed my views re Morality [most likely] do not even understand their own philosophical groundings thoroughly.
According to Metaphysical [/Philosophical] realism, the world is as it is independent of how humans or other inquiring agents take it to be.
The objects the world contains, together with their properties and the relations they enter into, fix the world’s nature and these objects [together with the properties they have and the relations they enter into] exist independently of our ability to discover they do.
Unless this is so, metaphysical realists argue, none of our beliefs about our world could be objectively true since true beliefs tell us how things are and beliefs are objective when true or false independently of what anyone might think.
To understand why Metaphysical [/Philosophical] realism is flimsy, unrealistic and untenable read the following article from SEP. [note this is merely one short aspect of anti-realism]

Challenges to Metaphysical Realism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/real ... challenge/
  • CONTENT
    1. What is Metaphysical Realism?
    2. Mind-Independent Existence
    3. The Anti-Realist Challenges to Metaphysical Realism
    3.1 Language Use and Understanding
    3.2 Language Acquisition
    3.3 Radical Skepticism
    3.4 Models and Reality
    3.5 Conceptual Schemes and Pluralism
    4. Realist Responses
    4.1 Language Use and Understanding
    4.2 Language Acquisition
    4.3 Radical Skepticism
    4.4 Models and Reality
    4.5 Conceptual Schemes and Pluralism
    5. Realism and Anti-Realism in Meta-Ontology
    6. Summary
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Note:
A survey of the bibliography above indicate the above have not considered the major philosophical anti-realists from those of the Kantian and Continental philosophies.

Note
Kant and the forms of realism
Dietmar Heidemann
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Anti-Realists deny the world is mind-independent.
Believing the epistemological and semantic problems to be insoluble, they conclude Realism must be false.

The first Anti-Realist arguments based on explicitly semantic considerations were advanced by Michael Dummett and Hilary Putnam.
  • These are:
    I. Dummett’s Manifestation Argument: the cognitive and linguistic behaviour of an agent provides no evidence that Realist mind/world links exist;
    II. Dummett’s Language Acquisition Argument: if such links were to exist language learning would be impossible;
    III. Putnam’s Brain-in-a-Vat Argument: Realism entails both that we could be massively deluded (‘brains in a vat’) and that if we were we could not even form the belief that we were;
    IV. Putnam’s Conceptual Relativity Argument: it is senseless to ask what the world contains independently of how we conceive of it, since the objects that exist depend on the conceptual scheme used to classify them;
    V. Putnam’s Model-Theoretic Argument: Realists must either hold that an ideal theory passing every conceivable test could be false or that perfectly determinate terms like ‘cat’ are massively indeterminate, and both alternatives are absurd.

    ibid
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Putnam's bain in a vat argument never demonstrated what it purported to. You can read On Certainty to find out why that is. The benefit for you in doing so would be that if you manged to read that book, you would then understand why your arguments about morality-proper and "facts" are non-starters
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Note that the article does not demonstrate that metaphysical realism is false. It includes arguments in favor of metaphysical realism.
IOW VA is appealing to the authority of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is in fact giving IN THAT SPECIFIC ARTICLE a much more nuanced and ambivalent position than he does. In that article...

Further, and ironically, there is no 'chapter' on Metaphysical anti-realism in the S of P.. It is brought up as a challenge to metaphysical realism, but seems to warrent no article of its own in the authority that VA is appealing to.

But it gets more ironic.

Stanford's E of P does have one stand alone essay on anti-realism and guess what it is about....
Moral Anti-realism
Traditionally, to hold a realist position with respect to X is to hold that X exists objectively. On this view, moral anti-realism is the denial of the thesis that moral properties—or facts, objects, relations, events, etc. (whatever categories one is willing to countenance)—exist objectively.
VA is a moral realist, but here is an article in S of P that is about Moral Anti-realism. Does this prove that he is wrong?

Well, hardly. That assertion would be as silly as his in his OP.

And of course VA frames anyone disagreeing with him or being critical of his posts or arguments as a realist. I don't fit that category.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Iwannaplato »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:14 pm Putnam's bain in a vat argument never demonstrated what it purported to. You can read On Certainty to find out why that is. The benefit for you in doing so would be that if you manged to read that book, you would then understand why your arguments about morality-proper and "facts" are non-starters
1) the very article from S of P he quotes is ambivalent and nuanced. Unlike him
2) there is no article in S of P solely for Metphysical Anti-realism. It is only a topic in response to realism.
3) the only article focused just on anti-realism is focused on morals. And if we follow his logic in his appeal to authority in the first OP, then it proves he is wrong about moral facts.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:15 pm Note that the article does not demonstrate that metaphysical realism is false.
True and false within the system of metaphysical realism; or true and false as judgments about metaphysical realism?

What could true and false judgments about a metaphysical system possibly express ?!?

There is a metaphysical system which calls this color green.
Is that system true or false?
Attachments
red.png
red.png (9.27 KiB) Viewed 1201 times
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

As mentioned the SEP focused mainly on Dummett and Putnam's anti-realist view but left out loads of other anti-realists' views which are more effective in countering realism [re independent existence].

The point is even with Dummett and Putnam's restricted views they are sufficient to throw a spanner to the claim of the independent existence ideology.

Note the thread I raised on this subject;
Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759

One of Putnam's main view is this;
"Putnam's main idea is that facts and values are entangled, that is, they are interconnected and cannot be separated into two realms"

For the book, see;
The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Value-D ... 0674013808
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:15 pm And of course VA frames anyone disagreeing with him or being critical of his posts or arguments as a realist. I don't fit that category.
Yeah, the only direct realist I'm aware of on this forum is Henry, who of course is one VA's side in this whole moral realism thing.
I really doubt that Pete is. But VA does enjoy misrepresenting you in between appeals to that "principle of charity" from which he alone should be permitted to benefit.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Iwannaplato »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 7:00 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:15 pm And of course VA frames anyone disagreeing with him or being critical of his posts or arguments as a realist. I don't fit that category.
Yeah, the only direct realist I'm aware of on this forum is Henry, who of course is one VA's side in this whole moral realism thing.
I really doubt that Pete is. But VA does enjoy misrepresenting you in between appeals to that "principle of charity" from which he alone should be permitted to benefit.
In his framing of realism he sometimes talks about the absolute independence of the outside world. That sounds something like what a parallel universe might have. IOW no contact or effects are possible between realms. Which even hard ass realists would deny since they assume that there are lines of causation between every human and the universe. In fact having mentioned that I think he adds the adjective 'absolute' in other contexts, which gives one the onus (suddenly for no reason) for defending a position we didn't have.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 9:01 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 7:00 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 12:15 pm And of course VA frames anyone disagreeing with him or being critical of his posts or arguments as a realist. I don't fit that category.
Yeah, the only direct realist I'm aware of on this forum is Henry, who of course is one VA's side in this whole moral realism thing.
I really doubt that Pete is. But VA does enjoy misrepresenting you in between appeals to that "principle of charity" from which he alone should be permitted to benefit.
In his framing of realism he sometimes talks about the absolute independence of the outside world. That sounds something like what a parallel universe might have. IOW no contact or effects are possible between realms. Which even hard ass realists would deny since they assume that there are lines of causation between every human and the universe. In fact having mentioned that I think he adds the adjective 'absolute' in other contexts, which gives one the onus (suddenly for no reason) for defending a position we didn't have.
Intereting, does that explain why he can't understand that the realism/antirealism debate isn't dramatic or important and it doesn't really matter who wins?
Atla
Posts: 6674
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Atla »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 8:33 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 9:01 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 7:00 am
Yeah, the only direct realist I'm aware of on this forum is Henry, who of course is one VA's side in this whole moral realism thing.
I really doubt that Pete is. But VA does enjoy misrepresenting you in between appeals to that "principle of charity" from which he alone should be permitted to benefit.
In his framing of realism he sometimes talks about the absolute independence of the outside world. That sounds something like what a parallel universe might have. IOW no contact or effects are possible between realms. Which even hard ass realists would deny since they assume that there are lines of causation between every human and the universe. In fact having mentioned that I think he adds the adjective 'absolute' in other contexts, which gives one the onus (suddenly for no reason) for defending a position we didn't have.
Intereting, does that explain why he can't understand that the realism/antirealism debate isn't dramatic or important and it doesn't really matter who wins?
I think, the only time when the idea of (quasi-)absolute indepence had any major significance, was in the 19th century and maybe the very early 20th century.

That time, scientists took the Cartesian dualism too seriously, the duality that splits existence into the mental world and the material world. And so they decided to only study the material world, with absolute objectivity, where the mental world absolutely doesn't disturb the material world.

It was sort of a (quasi-)absolute independence, where we can see the material world from the mental world, but we can't influence it in any way.

Then as everyone knows (or so I thought), in the 20th century the above idea got thoroughly destroyed, first and foremost by science itself, which was fairly ironic. So no one with a clue takes such a position anymore.

Except apparently VA didn't get the memo about this. He thinks it's still 1892 or something like that. How he pulled that off, I don't know.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 9:38 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 8:33 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 9:01 am In his framing of realism he sometimes talks about the absolute independence of the outside world. That sounds something like what a parallel universe might have. IOW no contact or effects are possible between realms. Which even hard ass realists would deny since they assume that there are lines of causation between every human and the universe. In fact having mentioned that I think he adds the adjective 'absolute' in other contexts, which gives one the onus (suddenly for no reason) for defending a position we didn't have.
Intereting, does that explain why he can't understand that the realism/antirealism debate isn't dramatic or important and it doesn't really matter who wins?
I think, the only time when the idea of (quasi-)absolute indepence had any major significance, was in the 19th century and maybe the very early 20th century.

That time, scientists took the Cartesian dualism too seriously, the duality that splits existence into the mental world and the material world. And so they decided to only study the material world, with absolute objectivity, where the mental world absolutely doesn't disturb the material world.

It was sort of a (quasi-)absolute independence, where we can see the material world from the mental world, but we can't influence it in any way.

Then as everyone knows (or so I thought), in the 20th century the above idea got thoroughly destroyed, first and foremost by science itself, which was fairly ironic. So no one with a clue takes such a position anymore.

Except apparently VA didn't get the memo about this. He thinks it's still 1892 or something like that. How he pulled that off, I don't know.
You are insulting your own intelligence on being so ignorant of what is going in the philosophical community at present.

This OP [from SEP] itself is an indication the Realism vs Anti-Realism debate is still very active else it will be qualified are archaic.
Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
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.[8]
In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
In analytic philosophy, anti-realism is a position which encompasses many varieties such as metaphysical, mathematical, semantic, scientific, moral and epistemic. The term was first articulated by British philosopher Michael Dummett in an argument against a form of realism Dummett saw as 'colorless reductionism'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism
There is a whole loads of anti-realism views from Continental Philosophy.

Repeat; you are insulting your own intelligence on being so ignorant of what is going on re the above in the philosophical community at present.

The Realism vs Anti-Realism has an impact on the Philosophy of Science is hindering the progress of Science by dogmatically clinging to Scientific Realism by implying a
"first cause" in Science, i.e.
scientific realism is the view that well-confirmed scientific theories are approximately true; the entities they postulate do exist; and we have good reason to believe their main tenets.
https://iep.utm.edu/scientific-realism-antirealism/
In this case scientific realism is indirectly complicit to theistic realism wherein the potential is the extermination of the human species via SOME evil prone Islamist who will not give a damn when they use WMDs.
Atla
Posts: 6674
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 6:14 am
Atla wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 9:38 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 8:33 am
Intereting, does that explain why he can't understand that the realism/antirealism debate isn't dramatic or important and it doesn't really matter who wins?
I think, the only time when the idea of (quasi-)absolute indepence had any major significance, was in the 19th century and maybe the very early 20th century.

That time, scientists took the Cartesian dualism too seriously, the duality that splits existence into the mental world and the material world. And so they decided to only study the material world, with absolute objectivity, where the mental world absolutely doesn't disturb the material world.

It was sort of a (quasi-)absolute independence, where we can see the material world from the mental world, but we can't influence it in any way.

Then as everyone knows (or so I thought), in the 20th century the above idea got thoroughly destroyed, first and foremost by science itself, which was fairly ironic. So no one with a clue takes such a position anymore.

Except apparently VA didn't get the memo about this. He thinks it's still 1892 or something like that. How he pulled that off, I don't know.
You are insulting your own intelligence on being so ignorant of what is going in the philosophical community at present.

This OP [from SEP] itself is an indication the Realism vs Anti-Realism debate is still very active else it will be qualified are archaic.
Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
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.[8]
In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism. Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
In analytic philosophy, anti-realism is a position which encompasses many varieties such as metaphysical, mathematical, semantic, scientific, moral and epistemic. The term was first articulated by British philosopher Michael Dummett in an argument against a form of realism Dummett saw as 'colorless reductionism'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism
There is a whole loads of anti-realism views from Continental Philosophy.

Repeat; you are insulting your own intelligence on being so ignorant of what is going on re the above in the philosophical community at present.

The Realism vs Anti-Realism has an impact on the Philosophy of Science is hindering the progress of Science by dogmatically clinging to Scientific Realism by implying a
"first cause" in Science, i.e.
scientific realism is the view that well-confirmed scientific theories are approximately true; the entities they postulate do exist; and we have good reason to believe their main tenets.
https://iep.utm.edu/scientific-realism-antirealism/
In this case scientific realism is indirectly complicit to theistic realism wherein the potential is the extermination of the human species via SOME evil prone Islamist who will not give a damn when they use WMDs.
This one time I'll be blunt with you VA. Listen, even after all this time, you confuse realism with absolute independence.

That's a philosophical mistake of such a magnitude, that not only will you never be known as a world-renowned philosopher, you should even give up philosophizing as a hobby. You are just not good at it and you probably never will be. And this can't be fully explained by a second-language issue either.

If you want to help, you should do smaller things, like help your community in a tangible way, but forget about thinking.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 6:27 am This one time I'll be blunt with you VA. Listen, even after all this time, you confuse realism with absolute independence.
Which wouldn't even be realism since that would mean that things we percieve are utterlly causally disconnected with us, which is a contradiction. I am not sure this is the core problem with his position, but I have noticed and mentioned the same thing.

I would call it an unintentional strawman. I don't assume he intentionally strawman's here. But I have noticed over the years that he chooses the most extreme possible position for people who disagree with him. Not unlike when he tells theists what they must believe, even though they disagree about what he says they must believe and then goes on to defeat a position they deny having: such as that a theist has to believe in a God that has all the omni qualities AND this includes the power to overcome logical contradictions. He takes some medieval Christian theologians, tells eveyrone that if you have a proper theism, it is like their theism, and then proceeds to 'prove' they are wrong so theism is wrong.

It's fascinating to watch because 1) we have an atheist telling the theists what they should believe and 2) it truly seems unconscious on his part. Introspection around bias does not seem to have hit yet.
Post Reply