I don't give a damn with what you think, just provide me with the sound argument. Here you are making noises.Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 6:27 amThis one time I'll be blunt with you VA. Listen, even after all this time, you confuse realism with absolute independence.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 6:14 amYou are insulting your own intelligence on being so ignorant of what is going in the philosophical community at present.Atla wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 9:38 am
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.
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_realismThere is a whole loads of anti-realism views from Continental Philosophy.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
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.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.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 general the realists claims of independence is also fraught with ambiguity, as such the need to qualify 'absolute' is essential.
When realists insist the moon or dinosaurs pre-existed humans, that is a claim of absolute independence.
Show me in all articles with the definition of 'realism' that do not involve the above absolute independence.
Without absolute independence a realist [as defined] would be claiming the contrary for 'idealism' or anti-realism.