In this thesis I propose a new philosophical framework for the philosophy of physics as an alternative to the existing scientific realism and antirealism debate. Such reconsideration of the debate is warranted by the widely shared perception of a disconnect between the philosophy and the practices it purports to describe. Specifically, I offer a shift in focus from analysis of the justificatory practices of physicists to an examination of the methodologies evident in the presentation of theories. I will show that this scientific activity can be described in terms of a tension between a "conservative" strategy and an "innovative" strategy. This interaction will be demonstrated in two case studies. The first case is H. A. Lorentz' search for an absolute frame of reference for space and time. The second case is the current search for dark matter.
The scientific realism versus antirealism debate turns on the relevance of epistemology to metaphysics. Realists argue that our best sciences yield information about the actual nature of the physical world. He might appeal to the "no miracles" argument, for example. However, this tactic presupposes the realist's own preferred relation between evidence and nature. Against this view, the antirealist argues that the product of scientific investigation is a description of observable phenomena and not of any underlying reality. Generally, antirealists have emphasized historical evidence against the realist picture and made arguments for one form of instrumentalism or another. As it stands, it seems that the issue is irresolvable.
Structural realism, a variant on scientific realism, is purported to address the antirealist criticism while maintaining a realist sensibility. Rather than focusin...
... middle of paper ...
... tension between these two strategies is what drives scientific progress. By testing the applicability of existing principles, and introducing new principles with broader domains of applicability, physicists aim at capturing more phenomena under fewer principles.
Two examples are illustrative of the effect of this framework in the philosophy of physics. First, I examine H. A. Lorentz' theoretical practices in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I show that Lorentz maintained a conservative strategy, even as the evidence mounted against him. This strategy failed when his preferred principles were replaced by Einstein's. My second example is the ongoing search for additional evidence for dark matter. Those seeking physical evidence for the applicability general relativity pursue the conservative strategy and those who offer new principles follow the innovative.
This essay examines the argument of Laudan’s Pessimistic Meta Induction (PMI.) I argue that the pessimistic Meta induction is fallacious, easily proven invalid by realist logic, and inapplicable to modern science. The Pessimistic Meta Induction is one of the most notable arguments against scientific realism. The theory centers around the historical pattern of scientific theories being abolished and replaced, essentially deeming the old theories false.
Part I: The Edge of Knowledge Chapter 1: Tied Up with Strings This is the introductory section, where the author, Brian Greene, examines the fundamentals of what is currently proven to be true by experimentation in the realm of modern physics. Green goes on to talk more about "The Basic Idea" of string theory. He describes how physicists are aspiring to reach the Theory of Everything, or T.O.E. Some suspect when string theory is completely understood that it might turn out to become the T.O.E.Part II: The Dilemma of Space, Time, and Quanta Chapter 2: Space, Time, and the Eye of the Beholder In the chapter, Greene describes how Albert Einstein solved the paradox about light. In the mid-1800's James Maxwell succeeded in showing that light was actually an electromagnetic wave.
In this essay I will be arguing that indirect realism is the most logical and the most plausible viewpoint to hold when looking into perception over direct realism, which I will argue, has no good reason to be used as a way to perceive things. I will look into the arguments for viewpoints of perception and which one is the most convincing. These viewpoints consist of; firstly direct realism (or naïve realism) most people who have not looked into philosophy hold this view, the view that you perceive things exactly as they are with properties that they seem to have, like occupying space, being a certain size or having a certain colour. This viewpoint has a lot of problems with it and I will be outlining some of them as well as counter arguments by direct realists.
The theories of relativity were revolutionary. Everybody agrees that Einstein brought about this revolution. Even the people that claim that Einstein just tweaked the theories of Lorentz and Poincaré, admit that Einstein was the first to recognize the physical meaning of the formulations. He understood that the terms and concepts like those of absolute space and absolute time must lose there meaning and other concepts had to replace them, if we were to be able to understand the phenomena of electrodynamics. All this is consistent with a scientific revolution as conceived of by Kuhn. It is then possible to express the revolution in science that Einstein started in terms of Kuhn’s paradigms and paradigm shifts.
Without theories, scientists’ experiments would yield no significance to the world. Theories are the core of the scientific community; therefore figuring out how to determine which theory prevails amongst the rest is an imperative matter. Kuhn was one of the many bold scientists to attempt to bring forth an explanation for why one theory is accepted over another, as well as the process of how this occurs, known as the Scientific Revolution. Kuhn chooses to refer to a theory as a ‘paradigm’, which encompasses a wide range of definitions such as “a way of doing science in a specific field”, “claims about the world”, “methods of fathering/analyzing data”, “habits of scientific thought and action”, and “a way of seeing the world and interacting with it” (Smith, pg.76). However in this case, we’ll narrow paradigm to have a similar definition to that of a ‘theory’, which is a system of ideas used to explain something; it can also be deemed a model for the scientific community to follow. Kuhn’s explanation of a Scientific Revolution brings to light one major problem—the problem of incommensurability.
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.
response to the question of his philosophy of physics, posed to him in Moscow in
A hundred years ago, a young married couple sat at a kitchen table talking over the items of the day while their young boy sat listening earnestly. He had heard the debate every night, and while there were no raised voices, their discussion was intense. It was a subject about which his parents were most passionate - the electrodynamics of moving bodies in the universe. The couple were of equal intelligence and fortitude, working together on a theory that few people can comprehend even to this day. Mileva Maric Einstein was considered to be the intellectual equal of her husband Albert, but somehow went unrecognized for her contributions to the 1905 Papers, which included the Special Theory of Relativity. The stronger force of these two bodies would be propelled into the archives of scientific history, while the other would be left to die alone, virtually unknown. Mrs. Einstein was robbed. She deserved to be recognized for at least a collaborative effort, but it was not to be. The role which society had accorded her and plain, bad luck would prove to be responsible for the life of this great mathematician and scientist, gone unnoticed.
In “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Research” it says, “they are the source of the methods, problem-field, and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at any given time.” These new discoveries can lead then to advancements and as a result can lead them to build a better society. Human beings will be able to reconstruct a better institutional framework which will bring them a prosperous and happy
Kirkpatrick, Larry, and Gerald F. Wheeler. Physics: A World View. 4th ed. Orlando: Harcourt College Publishers, 2001.
Maier, Sarah E. "Realism." Continuum Encyclopedia of British Literature. London: Continuum, 2006. Credo Reference. Web. 25 April 2014.
"Realism." The Bloomsbury Dictionary of English Literature. London: Bloomsbury, 1997. Credo Reference. Web. 23 April 2014.
...tful and thought provoking opinions on scientific realism. Each perspective explains science in its own unique way. As a result, I was drawn to know how entity realism defines success in science. According to Steven French, success for entity realism depends on more than just the “supposed truth of theories”. Entity realist defines success as the ability for us to “intervene in the world”. This intervention enables us to create new technologies and observe new phenomena. Our new technologies allow us to believe in unobservable entities like electrons. I found this to be important because this is essentially a description of scientist’s day-to-day task. It is their job to identify phenomena, research it and come up with an explanation of why the phenomena occurs. Scientist spend their entire careers intervening in hopes to grasp a better understanding of the world.
During the seventeenth century, the modern science of physics started to emerge and become a widespread tool used around the world. Many prominent people contributed to the build up of this fascinating field and managed to generally define it as the science of matter and energy and their interactions. However, as we know, physics is much more than that. It explains the world around us in every form imaginable. The study of physics is a fundamental science that helps the advancing knowledge of the natural world, technology and aids in the other sciences and in our economy. Without the field of physics, the world today would be a complete mystery, everything would be different because of the significance physics has on our life as individuals and as a society.