According to scientific realists, scientific theories aim to provide descriptions and other representations or truths about the world. On the other hand, anti-realists, such as Bas Van Fraassen, disagree with realists and hold onto their contradictory views that conveys successful scientific theories do not necessarily provide the truth or prove existence. I believe the anti-realists’ response to scientific realism effectively debunks the realists’ views; successful scientific theories do not undoubtedly provide truths about the world. This essay will focus on the arguments provided in favour of scientific realism with corresponding responses from the anti-realist Van Fraassen.
To begin, let’s discuss how scientific realism should be formulated.
…show more content…
The first of which is known as the ‘Wrong Basis’ Argument that was introduced by Grover Maxwell. Anti-realism is a doctrine about ontology that is based on observability which is achieved by discussing facts about a human’s capability of what they can and cannot perceive. According to Maxwell, this concept is misguided; observability is problematic and thus, does not provide a strong foundation to anti-realism. To distinguish what exists from what is nonexistent, we look at the difference between observation and detection. Observation occurs when the entity is observed directly without a mediating image while contrastingly detection occurs when an image is observed with the use of a mediating object, such as a telescope, after which the entity’s existence is inferred. For instance, looking at a tree is an obvious case of observation whereas the use of a bubble chamber, in which electrons leave tracks as they move, is detection. The bubble chamber is considered detection since the electrons are invisible to the naked eye. The argument raised by Maxwell is the concern that looking though a window or glasses would be considered as detection and not observation, since there is a mediating object in between the naked eye and the entity (a piece of glass in this case). Maxwell points out that this is rather absurd; looking at a person with glasses is considered detection whereas looking at the same person without glasses is observation. Disregarding the glass issue, different scientists have drawn different lines between observation and detection. For example, epidemiologists consider symptoms of diseases observable and the cause, due to micro-organisms, to be unobservable. On the other hand, physicists consider micro-organisms to be
There are different viewpoints on the question “what is the universe made of?” I think that both science and religion offer their own explanation to this topic and they sometimes overlap, which creates contradictions. Therefore, I do not agree with Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial, which claims that there is a fine line separating science from religion. That being said, I think the conflict between science and religion is only in the study of evolution. It is possible for a scientist to be religious if he is not studying evolution, because science is very broad and it has various studies. In this essay, I will talk about the conflict between religion and science by comparing the arguments from Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. I argue that science and religion do overlap but only in some area concerning evolution and the cosmic design. Furthermore, when these overlaps are present it means that there are conflicts and one must choose between science and religion.
is almost invisible until further analyzed; it is something that we perceive as being simple
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
believable or it is conceivable that it is false. This means that we can’t really know that anything we perceive
This essay aims to discuss the problems of the common view of science which was presented by Alan Chalmers by Popperian's view and my personal opinions. Chalmers gives his opinion about what science is and the judgment will be made in this essay through the Popperian hypothetico-deductive and my arguments will be presented in this essay. Popperian is an important philosopher of science who developed hypothetico-deductive method, which is also known as falsificationism. In my opinion, I disagree Chlamer points of view of science and this will be present in essay later. I will restrict my arguments into three parts due to the word limitation. Three aspects will be discussed in this essay: justifying the view through the Popper's view, my agreement about the Popper's objections and additional personal opinions.
Within this essay there will be a clear understanding of the contrast and comparison between left and right realism, supported by accurate evidence that will support and differentiate the two wings of realism.
The first argument to be discussed is that of conceivability, which aims to disprove that the mind and
Skepticism is the view that there is no way to prove that objects exist outside of us. Skeptics hold that we can not distinguish between dreams and reality, and therefore what we take to be true can very well be creations of our minds while we are nothing more than a simple piece of matter, such as a brain sitting in a vat that is connected to a machine that simulates a perfect representation of reality for the “brain” to live in.1 In the excerpt “Proof of an External World” from his essay of the same name, G.E. Moore responds to the skeptic’s argument by attempting to prove the existence of external objects. There are four parts to this paper. Firstly, I will explain Moore’s overall argumentative strategy and how he considers his proof to be rigorous and legitimate. Then, I will present Moore’s proof of the existence of an external world. Thirdly, I will discuss the responses that skeptics may have to Moore’s argument and how Moore defends his proof against the these responses. Finally, I will give my opinion on how efficiently Moore defends his claims against the skeptics’ responses.
Realism claims that what we can review about our surrounding is established in the fact that they absolutely exist. What we believe about gathered information is what we think about the actual world. It states that there is an actual world that assimilates directly with what we think about it.
Throughout the six meditations on First Philosophy, French philosopher Rene Descartes seeks to find a concrete foundation for the basis of science, one which he states can only include certain and unquestionable beliefs. Anything less concrete, he argues will be exposed to the external world and to opposition by philosophical sceptics.
Perception is defined as the awareness of the world through the use of the five senses, but the concept of perception is often used to isolate one person’s point of view, so how reliable can perception be if no one person’s is exactly the same? The word perception itself is riddled with different, well, perceptions of its meaning. When some hear the word they might automatically think of it as something innately flawed, that can easily be fooled by illusions, while others may think of its usefulness when avoiding scalding a hand on a hot stove. I am here to agree with both and to argue that perception is something necessary and helpful, and something that should be scrutinized for its flaws. By looking at perception as a way of knowing in the
In 1513, Nicholas Copernicus, composed a brief theory that stated that the sun is at rest and the earth is in rotation around the sun. In 1543, just days before his death, Copernicus published this theory in On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. This theory was meant to dissolve the long lived belief in Ptolemyís theory which stated, "The earth was at the center because it was the heaviest of objects(Kagan331)." This was a common belief at that time, which supported the religious beliefs that the earth was the center of the universe and God in the heavens were surrounding the earth. Copernicusís theory was shocking, but he published such a controversial theory without sufficient evidence, it had to be considered invalid.
The study of any particular science involves embracing particular and specific ontology, epistemology and methodologies that are different from each other. Ontology is the concept that defines and explains the essential types of truth (Blaikie 2009). Every field of science constitutes its own ontology and in most cases two types of ontology exists: formal ontology and domain ontology (Blaikie 2009). Formal ontology type of research always postulates something general related to reality while on the other hand domain ontology postulate something specific with regard to different types of truths (Blaikie 2009). On its part epistemology constitute a science concept that defines how human and the general population of the world know and reason the particular truth. The two concepts are differentiated by particular assumptions that are associated with each of them. For instance assumptions associated with ontology include: shallow realist, conceptual realist, cautious realist, depth realist and idealist (Blaikie 2009). On the other hand assumptions related to epistemology include: empiricism, rationalism, falsificationism, neo-realism and constructionism (Blaikie 2009). Therefore the purpose of this essay will be to define objectivism and inteprativism as related to ontology, define positivism and interpretavism as related to epistemology, explain how ontology and epistemology are linked and how they influence each other, before lastly looking at how important ontology and epistemology are.
“Arguments Concerning Scientific Realism” is Bas van Fraassen’s attack on the positive construction of science. He starts by defining scientific realism as the goal of science to provide a “literally true story of what the world is like;” and the “acceptance of a scientific theory” necessitates the “belief that it is true”. This definition contains two important attributes. The first attribute describes scientific realism as practical. The aim of science is to reach an exact truth of the world. The second attribute is that scientific realism is epistemic. To accept a theory one must believe that it is true. Van Fraassen acknowledges that a “literally true account” divides anti-realists into two camps. The first camp holds the belief that science’s aim is to give proper descriptions of what the world is like. On the other hand, the second camp believes that a proper description of the world must be given, but acceptance of corresponding theories as true is not necessary.
‘… To obtain something resembling a scientific handle on the concept of information we need to begin with a clear picture of what we are observing. Physics is concerned with physical bodies of all kinds, their properties and their behaviour. We do not have to define the concept of a body in so many words because we can show a person so many concrete examples that he can learn to use the word ‘body’ as competently as we do ourselves. Similarly, we can start our exploration of information by using the concept of a sign. We might tell someone that a sign is any physical object, event, or property of an object or event which can stand for something else. But we do not leave it at that. We show them hundreds of diverse examples until they know what a sign is by ostensive definition (that is, by demonstration). In this way we escape the tyranny of a verbal regression into the domain of practical, concrete action.