Anti-Realism Proper

[Veritas Aequitas]

When the idea of anti-realism is not properly understood it get rhetorical, deviated and bastardized from its intended philosophical meaning [as generally accepted].
Here is an example of a bastardized An anti-realism

What is Anti-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'.[1]

In anti-realism, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

Note the term "context principle" i.e. it is conditioned upon certain context such as a Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
Re Intuitionistic Logic:

Intuitionistic logic, sometimes more generally called constructive logic, refers to systems of symbolic logic that differ from the systems used for classical logic by more closely mirroring the notion of constructive proof. In particular, systems of intuitionistic logic do not assume the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination, which are fundamental inference rules in classical logic.

In a nuanced condition, i.e. an external reality may be considered but it hypothetical, i.e. it not claim as an absolutely* mind independent objective reality. * not relative.

In anti-realism, this external reality is hypothetical and is not assumed.[3][4] ibid

"The term was first articulated by British philosopher Michael Dummett in an argument against a form of realism" which is this;

Philosophical Realism – usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e.
that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or
that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

This is the typical claim by philosophical realists who claim,
"the moon existed before there were humans and will continue to exists even if humans are extinct."
"the-description is not the-described"

The dichotomy between philosophical realism vs antirealism [ANTI-p_realism] is very specific and they are mutually exclusive.

As such, it is either philosophical realism or antirealism that is realistic or otherwise an illusion.

I had argued p-realism is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Philosophical Realism is actually an ideology [ism] that is driven by an evolutionary default of what is supposedly real, i.e. originate from common sense realism.
Common sense realism is just crude realism which is vulnerable to illusions [sense, logical and transcendental] thus do not has any credibility to claim 'realness'.
What p-realists are doing is, while driven by an existential crisis, grasp and convert common sense realism as philosophical or metaphysical realism.

Philosophical Realism is illusory.
Antirealism [Kantian] is an approach to counter the illusion of philosophical realism to ensure what emerged and realized p is most [not absolute] realistic, but within a human based FSK.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

The above is the precise explanation for what is antirealism, i.e. it arise to in direct opposition to the illusory philosophical or metaphysical realism.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
There are nuances to the above which I had avoided to prevent confusions.

[Iwannaplato]

When the idea of anti-realism is not properly understood it get rhetorical, deviated and bastardized from its intended philosophical meaning [as generally accepted].
Here is an example of a bastardized An anti-realism

A very basic thing would have been to explain how that thread is a bastardized antirealism.
But you don't do that for some reason.

What is Anti-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'.[1]

In anti-realism, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism
Note the term "context principle" i.e. it is conditioned upon certain context such as a Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

This is weird. Earlier you've said...

Analytic philosophy is ending on a dying trend or cycle.

and many other disparaging statements about analytical philosophy in other posts. Now, to find out the true meaning of anti-realism we go to analytic philosophy.

Re Intuitionistic Logic:
Intuitionistic logic, sometimes more generally called constructive logic, refers to systems of symbolic logic that differ from the systems used for classical logic by more closely mirroring the notion of constructive proof. In particular, systems of intuitionistic logic do not assume the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination, which are fundamental inference rules in classical logic.

In a nuanced condition, i.e. an external reality may be considered but it hypothetical, i.e. it not claim as an absolutely* mind independent objective reality. * not relative.

'hypothetical' would mean that is a kind working assumption that is being explored or used.

In anti-realism, this external reality is hypothetical and is not assumed.[3][4] ibid

which is not what you do. It is not one of your hypotheses, for example.

"The term was first articulated by British philosopher Michael Dummett in an argument against a form of realism" which is this;

Philosophical Realism – usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e.
that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or
that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

This is the typical claim by philosophical realists who claim,
"the moon existed before there were humans and will continue to exists even if humans are extinct."
"the-description is not the-described"

The dichotomy between philosophical realism vs antirealism [ANTI-p_realism] is very specific and they are mutually exclusive.

There are lots of realisms and lots of antirealism. This is mentioned in the texts you quote but it seems clear to you, for reasons unstated, that Atla's ideas cannot fit within anti-realism. Perhaps you could support that assertion in his thread.

[Atla]

Of course it's obvious and well-known to anyone who isn't a complete philosophical kindie (such as VA) that philosophy can't be simply divided into realism and anti-realism. The theory in my thread you linked, is for example rather a convergence between realism and anti-realism. It's rather realist from a highly anti-realist point of view, and rather anti-realist from a highly realist point of view.

Under the right conditions (such as the conditions of humanity today) it looks like realism, but under other conditions maybe it could look like highly mind-dependent anti-realism too, with powers over reality that would otherwise be considered impossible.

A realist universe may be basically indistinguishable from an anti-realist universe where there are a lot of observers, so they cancel each other out almost completely. Which could be the world we live in right now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

When the idea of anti-realism is not properly understood it get rhetorical, deviated and bastardized from its intended philosophical meaning [as generally accepted].
Here is an example of a bastardized An anti-realism

A very basic thing would have been to explain how that thread is a bastardized antirealism.
But you don't do that for some reason.

That link is one example, it is obvious from Atla's posts [e.g. below & all over] he is a very hardcore philosophical realists with scientific realism.

Just because every species is bound to its own kind of "intersubjective" reality as their nervous systems are built differently, and couldn't experience "absolutely absolute reality" exactly as it is, if there was such a reality, that doesn't mean that there is no "absolutely absolute reality".
Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't.
I'd say according to science it's over 95% likely that there is one ["absolutely absolute reality" exactly as it is].

There is NOTHING difficult about the above insight, I don't know what kind of cognitive impairment would prevent someone from seeing it.

Since his philosophical realism is hardcore as in the above scientific realism, there is no room for him to adopt antirealism [per Dummett]. His above views leave no room for any convergence, so it is either philosophical realism or antirealism [note "anti" i.e. anti-p-realism].

This is weird. Earlier you've said...

Analytic philosophy is ending on a dying trend or cycle.

and many other disparaging statements about analytical philosophy in other posts. Now, to find out the true meaning of anti-realism we go to analytic philosophy.

I mentioned in post #2 there are nuanced points to be considered.
I am all for analysis but not the ideology of 'Analyticism' within Analytic Philosophy that insist upon its superiority over others, e.g. Continental or Eastern Philosophies.

One point is,
the belief of philosophical realism [mind-independent reality] is from an evolutionary default, so oppositions to "mind-independent reality" had emerged thousands of years ago, e.g. Buddhism 2500 years ago, within the Greeks during the BCE, Protagoras' "Man is the measure of all things," Heraclitus 'cannot step into the same river twice' and many others that opposed the idea of an objective mind-independent reality.

Within Analytic Philosophy, Dummett merely introduced the term 'anti-realism' to systematize the variations of the main themes of the oppositions to the idea of an objective mind-independent reality.

There are lots of realisms and lots of antirealism. This is mentioned in the texts you quote but it seems clear to you, for reasons unstated, that Atla's ideas cannot fit within anti-realism. Perhaps you could support that assertion in his thread.

Yes there is a lot of realisms but the topic is on philosophical /metaphysical realism as defined above.
As such, the antirealism [as Dummett intended] is defaulted to specifically ANTI-philosophical_realism.

As stated, Atla is a hardcore philosophical realist thus cannot fit into the standard Dummett's antirealism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a relevant point to the OP re the emergence of Philosophical Realism and the anti-p-realism that followed;

“I wanted certainty,” he [Bertrand Russell] wrote in his Autobiography, “in the kind of way in which people want religious faith. I thought that certainty is more likely to be found in mathematics than elsewhere” (Volume III, 1969, p.326)
viewtopic.php?t=41551

The instinct for certainty is an evolutionary default* to facilitate survival.
It is this the clinging to this dogmatic ideology of certainty as influenced by Russell via Analytic Philosophy [Analyticism] that had dogged and hindered the progress of real philosophy.

* Whenever our primitive ancestor went hunting in the bushes and they hear the cracking sound of a twig, those who instantly are 100% certain [absolutely] there is a sable-toothed tiger around [past incidents] and then ran as fast as they could, would be more likely to survive and pass on their genes than those who ignored the sound.
This instinct for certainty is thus adapted [evolutionary] within those who continue to survive up the present.

But any sense of absolute certainty by fallible humans is a contradiction and impossibility.
Yet those driven by the primitive instinct for certainty will continue to seek certainty, e.g. a mind-independent objective reality as with the philosophical realists.

[Atla]

Here is a relevant point to the OP re the emergence of Philosophical Realism and the anti-p-realism that followed;

“I wanted certainty,” he [Bertrand Russell] wrote in his Autobiography, “in the kind of way in which people want religious faith. I thought that certainty is more likely to be found in mathematics than elsewhere” (Volume III, 1969, p.326)
viewtopic.php?t=41551

The instinct for certainty is an evolutionary default* to facilitate survival.
It is this the clinging to this dogmatic ideology of certainty as influenced by Russell via Analytic Philosophy [Analyticism] that had dogged and hindered the progress of real philosophy.

* Whenever our primitive ancestor went hunting in the bushes and they hear the cracking sound of a twig, those who instantly are 100% certain [absolutely] there is a sable-toothed tiger around [past incidents] and then ran as fast as they could, would be more likely to survive and pass on their genes than those who ignored the sound.
This instinct for certainty is thus adapted [evolutionary] within those who continue to survive up the present.

But any sense of absolute certainty by fallible humans is a contradiction and impossibility.
Yet those driven by the primitive instinct for certainty will continue to seek certainty, e.g. a mind-independent objective reality as with the philosophical realists.

Says the guy whose philosophy is based on certainty, which is the colossal flaw I've been pointing out.

[Atla]

As stated, Atla is a hardcore philosophical realist thus cannot fit into the standard Dummett's antirealism.

Wouldn't a "hardcore" realist insist that there is certainly a mind-independent world, and its known features are 100% given without any involvement from the "human conditions", nor can we ever have any uncanny mental powers over said reality? Idiot.

[Iwannaplato]

I mentioned in post #2 there are nuanced points to be considered.
I am all for analysis but not the ideology of 'Analyticism' within Analytic Philosophy that insist upon its superiority over others, e.g. Continental or Eastern Philosophies.

You have repeated said things like what I quoted that analytic philosophy is dead or a dead end or silly, etc. Analysis is not analytic philosophy. You have gone to analytic philosophic as the definer of antirealism.

One point is,
the belief of philosophical realism [mind-independent reality] is from an evolutionary default, so oppositions to "mind-independent reality" had emerged thousands of years ago, e.g. Buddhism 2500 years ago, within the Greeks during the BCE, Protagoras' "Man is the measure of all things," Heraclitus 'cannot step into the same river twice' and many others that opposed the idea of an objective mind-independent reality.

Yes, yes you've said this many times. The quote from Heraclitus need not at all be antirealist. It could easily be merely antinominalist. One could believe in a mind independent reality made of matter. But disagree with the idea that The Thames is a thing. When you step in The Thames the next time it has a slightly different shape, is made of new atoms and so it is not the same thing or river. That it is a mere convenient abstraction. But this does not commit one to your position.

There are lots of realisms and lots of antirealism. This is mentioned in the texts you quote but it seems clear to you, for reasons unstated, that Atla's ideas cannot fit within anti-realism. Perhaps you could support that assertion in his thread.

Yes there is a lot of realisms but the topic is on philosophical /metaphysical realism as defined above.
As such, the antirealism [as Dummett intended] is defaulted to specifically ANTI-philosophical_realism.

As stated, Atla is a hardcore philosophical realist thus cannot fit into the standard Dummett's antirealism.

restating your position, but without interacting with the thread you linked to.

I'm not sure you understand that rephrasing and repeating your position is not justification.

It might be a great response to someone asking you to explain what you have written. By putting it into a new form, the repetition might be helpful. But this is not a justification of the position.

You started a new thread where you asserted that X is not antirealism. Obviously no one can force you to justify that assertion. But I will point out that you haven't justified it. It's a mere claim so far.

[Skepdick]

When the idea of anti-realism is not properly understood it get rhetorical

I don't think you; or any philosopher properly understand what it means to properly understand.

That's why philosophy is viciously and perpetually rhetorical.

[Skepdick]

Wouldn't a "hardcore" realist insist that there is certainly a mind-independent world, and its known features are 100% given without any involvement from the "human conditions".

They would 100% assert that.

A hardcore realist would also 100% assert that objective truth is mind-independent.

Since ALL beliefs are mind-dependent, while objective truth is mind-independent it trivially follows that objectively true beliefs can't and don't exist in any realistic world-view.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I mentioned in post #2 there are nuanced points to be considered.
I am all for analysis but not the ideology of 'Analyticism' within Analytic Philosophy that insist upon its superiority over others, e.g. Continental or Eastern Philosophies.

You have repeated said things like what I quoted that analytic philosophy is dead or a dead end or silly, etc. Analysis is not analytic philosophy. You have gone to analytic philosophic as the definer of antirealism.

I have done extensive research into Analytic Philosophy and understand the fundamental of Analytic Philosophy is "analysis" as embedded in the term 'analytic'.

The dominance of ‘analytic’ philosophy in the English-speaking world, and increasingly now in the rest of the world, might suggest that a consensus has formed concerning the role and importance of analysis.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/
see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/s6.html

Problem is Analytic Philosophy has adopted 'analysis' as an ideology.

One point is,
the belief of philosophical realism [mind-independent reality] is from an evolutionary default, so oppositions to "mind-independent reality" had emerged thousands of years ago, e.g. Buddhism 2500 years ago, within the Greeks during the BCE, Protagoras' "Man is the measure of all things," Heraclitus 'cannot step into the same river twice' and many others that opposed the idea of an objective mind-independent reality.

Yes, yes you've said this many times. The quote from Heraclitus need not at all be antirealist. It could easily be merely antinominalist. One could believe in a mind independent reality made of matter. But disagree with the idea that The Thames is a thing. When you step in The Thames the next time it has a slightly different shape, is made of new atoms and so it is not the same thing or river. That it is a mere convenient abstraction. But this does not commit one to your position.

The statement 'one cannot step into the same river twice' is a very glaring example to counter philosophical realism.
Philosophical realism claim there are mind-independent things out there like a permanent stone [not disturbed by humans] that remain the same day in day out.
'One cannot step into the same river twice' demonstrate quite instantly changes with reference to its water or if more precise its atoms.
But the philosophical realist do not see that the stone at t1 and t2 are different 'stones' because the particles shift in and out within its boundaries just as the water and atoms changes every moment.
As such, 'One cannot step into the same river twice' justify my position as antirealist in opposing the philosophical realist's view.

There are lots of realisms and lots of antirealism. This is mentioned in the texts you quote but it seems clear to you, for reasons unstated, that Atla's ideas cannot fit within anti-realism. Perhaps you could support that assertion in his thread.

Yes there is a lot of realisms but the topic is on philosophical /metaphysical realism as defined above.
As such, the antirealism [as Dummett intended] is defaulted to specifically ANTI-philosophical_realism.

As stated, Atla is a hardcore philosophical realist thus cannot fit into the standard Dummett's antirealism.

restating your position, but without interacting with the thread you linked to.

I'm not sure you understand that rephrasing and repeating your position is not justification.

It might be a great response to someone asking you to explain what you have written. By putting it into a new form, the repetition might be helpful. But this is not a justification of the position.

You started a new thread where you asserted that X is not antirealism. Obviously no one can force you to justify that assertion. But I will point out that you haven't justified it. It's a mere claim so far.

You being blinded, it is not likely you will recognize any justifications if there are any. Note the demo of the 500 pound gorilla re 'attention blindness'.

It is the same with non-theists trying to justify their arguments to theists, i.e. they are so blinded and can never understand any counter arguments.

[Iwannaplato]

What p-realists are doing is, while driven by an existential crisis, grasp and convert common sense realism as philosophical or metaphysical realism.

First post in a thread. Generalization (no, universalization) aimed at the people who disagree. This is why they all believe what they believe + psychoanlysis. Implicit ad hom presented without justification, adding no substrace to the debate.

Yet, VA asserts he only RESPONDS to insults etc. No, he opens discussions with broadly aimed insults and condescension.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What p-realists are doing is, while driven by an existential crisis, grasp and convert common sense realism as philosophical or metaphysical realism.

First post in a thread. Generalization (no, universalization) aimed at the people who disagree. This is why they all believe what they believe + psychoanlysis. Implicit ad hom presented without justification, adding no substrace to the debate.

Yet, VA asserts he only RESPONDS to insults etc. No, he opens discussions with broadly aimed insults and condescension.

Your above is very cheap.
What I had asked you to show is a case where I had started the insults in discussion with p realists here since I began posting in PN.
Of course, if you pick anything in the midst of battle there will be fighting, but the question is who started the war in the first place?

Btw, in your case, the battle had already started from ILP where I had taken steps to ignore you. I only interacted here because there were some relevant points. You are only good at bitchiness and don't have substance.
Show me one post you have introduced which is of serious philosophical substance?

[nemos]

What is Anti-Realism

In anti-realism, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

Do I understand correctly that in anti-realism theory prevails over facts. If the fact does not fit into the theory, then the fact should be revised, but not the theory?
In contrast to realism, where the theory is only an approximate model of reality, and which is tested for compliance with known facts and the ability to predict unknown ones.