Printable View
This doesn't make sense to me, when something is independent of your perception, it doesn't imply an existance, it implies a belief in it. If you have perception of it, it also makes it usefull to define it.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
We can perceive it but it's existance is not dependant on our perception.
hmmm ...
I know for one that there is a printer in the next room (how ? Because every time I walk into that room it is there at the same place), I cannot see it right now (perceive it if you will) because the door is shut but it does exist.
Don't beat me over the head with "reality is a dream and dependent on perception" theories, please :(
/backing out of thread hurridly ...
Kedaman
OK, I know what you're saying here. I attribute the sensory data I recieve to imply the existance of things independant of my perception and yes, that is only a belief, but it is a useful belief. Indeed, it is more useful than the belief that all our sensory data comes from some deep within our unconsious selves.Quote:
This doesn't make sense to me, when something is independent of your perception, it doesn't imply an existance, it implies a belief in it.
Why is it more useful to believe in an external reality? Because we have no choice but to behave in such a way that assumes there is an external reality.
In addition, there is more reason to suppose that sensory data comming from an external world is self-consistant and reliable (than there is with data comming from our subconsious selves). If it wasn't, it would be difficult to understand how we could exist in an inconsistant and unstable physical reality.
With this assumption in mind, we can conjecture patterns and models that should represent the external world, resting assured that a consistant external world will supply consistant sensory data which will enable us to build more and more accurate models.
Simon
How so? It doesn't change anything, it just makes you accept a broader range of tools, such as QM.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
OK, I know what you're saying here. I attribute the sensory data I recieve to imply the existance of things independant of my perception and yes, that is only a belief, but it is a useful belief. Indeed, it is more useful than the belief that all our sensory data comes from some deep within our unconsious selves.
which is a limitation, how can a limitation be useful?Quote:
Why is it more useful to believe in an external reality? Because we have no choice but to behave in such a way that assumes there is an external reality.
I don't understand your reasoning here, can you give me a concrete example or elaborate more?Quote:
In addition, there is more reason to suppose that sensory data comming from an external world is self-consistant and reliable (than there is with data comming from our subconsious selves). If it wasn't, it would be difficult to understand how we could exist in an inconsistant and unstable physical reality.
And how does that not in the interest of an instrumentalist?Quote:
With this assumption in mind, we can conjecture patterns and models that should represent the external world, resting assured that a consistant external world will supply consistant sensory data which will enable us to build more and more accurate models.
a quick example :
2 persons on 2 rotating platforms, one clockwise, the other counterclockwise.
Suppose you're one of them.
Does the other person fade out of existence as soon as you cannot perceive him ?
Does the other one's presence matter or is it irrelevant in your frame of mind ?
Does he contribute to your idea and perception of reality constantly or is he only a part of it when you see him ?
Is he proof of an external reality which does not necessarily have to be perceived to be existing or is it all part of your frame of reference of the world ?
Kedaman
The limitation, in itself, is not useful but recognising and being aware of the limitation is useful. We can work around it and make the best of it. Denying it's existance is certainly not useful.Quote:
which is a limitation, how can a limitation be useful?
Well, if you assume there is an external world independant of our perception, then it implies that we are somehow products of the external world (and are somehow being sustained within it). Since this is the case, it is more reasonable to assume that there is some degree of consistancy and stability in the external world as, if this were not the case, it would be harder to explain why our existance came about in the first place (and seems to persist).Quote:
I don't understand your reasoning here, can you give me a concrete example or elaborate more?
Now, given these assumptions, it is now possible to make assertions about the nature of reality itself which we can then test by analysing our sensory data.
Without assuming the existance of an external reality, there is no other place that our sensory data could be comming from other than from deep within our subconsious selves. Is there any reason to believe that this might be consistant? I don't see why. What business do we have makeing assertions about the nature of our subconsious selves when we have no reason to presume it's self-consistancy?
Does the other person fade out of existence as soon as you cannot perceive him ?
Existance is a meaningless concept really, you become unaware of it as soon as you cannot percieve him, which means that he fades into your unconscious, if you in your mind think that he is there, then he is being partly in your conscious.
Does the other one's presence matter or is it irrelevant in your frame of mind ?
Depends what you mean with presence.
Does he contribute to your idea and perception of reality constantly or is he only a part of it when you see him ?
As said, he does contribute to my perception, but that perception is that simple.
Is he proof of an external reality which does not necessarily have to be perceived to be existing
Only with the approperiate presumptions.
is it all part of your frame of reference of the world ?
Same as above
This all goes back to the explanation I gave to err whositthen ... forgot ... about the existence of time and why movement can exist outside our notion of time.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Existance is a meaningless concept really, you become unaware of it as soon as you cannot percieve him, which means that he fades into your unconscious, if you in your mind think that he is there, then he is being partly in your conscious.
But does he still exist ? Is it because you don't see him he ceases to exist ? I know, in the mind, he exists as long as you care to think about him but does it terminate his existance ?
Depends what you mean with presence.
Presence as being there, standing there, living, breathing, existing.
As said, he does contribute to my perception, but that perception is that simple.
I meant : is he part of reality only because you choose to think so or does he exist too, without you thinking that.
Only with the approperiate presumptions.
So without any presumptions at all, he ceases to exist ?
*sigh* dig it out yourself.
Simon
Aha! An Instrumentalist doesn't deny existance of such, he merely argues the usefullness of existance as part of the presumptions of application, he is not bound to believe that it permanent.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
The limitation, in itself, is not useful but recognising and being aware of the limitation is useful. We can work around it and make the best of it. Denying it's existance is certainly not useful.
I haven't seen any papers on how consciousness arises from matter. In fact it does makes much more sense to say that matter is the product of consciousness, as we can see it in form of information. We can directly define and percept information, but we can't define or percept matter.Quote:
Well, if you assume there is an external world independant of our perception, then it implies that we are somehow products of the external world (and are somehow being sustained within it). Since this is the case, it is more reasonable to assume that there is some degree of consistancy and stability in the external world as, if this were not the case, it would be harder to explain why our existance came about in the first place (and seems to persist).
Which can be done traditionally by instrumentalists as well, on the presumption of such a nature.Quote:
Now, given these assumptions, it is now possible to make assertions about the nature of reality itself which we can then test by analysing our sensory data.
If we would argue that existance of reality, then it would still be application of our subconscious.Quote:
Without assuming the existance of an external reality, there is no other place that our sensory data could be comming from other than from deep within our subconsious selves.
Information is permanent, it doesn't mutate while in your subconscious.Quote:
Is there any reason to believe that this might be consistant? I don't see why. What business do we have makeing assertions about the nature of our subconsious selves when we have no reason to presume it's self-consistancy?
Wally
But does he still exist ? Is it because you don't see him he ceases to exist ? I know, in the mind, he exists as long as you care to think about him but does it terminate his existance ?
you decide, you define reality, if you won't, it will automate and become part of your unconscious and then you're stuck with it.
Presence as being there, standing there, living, breathing, existing.
If I needed him for application.
I meant : is he part of reality only because you choose to think so or does he exist too, without you thinking that.
same as above
So without any presumptions at all, he ceases to exist ?
Basically yes, existance will only be instaneous notation for application.
You must have an interesting social life then ;)
"When I turn my back and stop thinking about you, you cease to exist"
I can see its usefulness, true enough :)
Kedaman
No, Instrumentalists do not make assertions about the nature of an unerlying reality. They see such endevours to be a waste of time and non-scientific.Quote:
Which can be done traditionally by instrumentalists as well, on the presumption of such a nature.
An instrumentalist analysis sensory data and they beleive that they can derive generalisations from these observations by which they can use to predict future observations (useful models). They do not see any value in the additional assertion that these models are representations of an underlying reality.
However, it is presisely my point that they delude themselves that sensory data can be used to formulate theories. Theories have to be creatively and imaginatively postulated, and only then are they subject to testing and comparisons to sensory data we have received.
Thus, if we are not postulating theorems on the sensory data we have received, where do they come from? They come from our belief in an external reality. We imagine what that external reality might be like and then we test those conjectures with our sensory data to see if they can be corroborated.
Simon
I disagree, Instrumentalist makes such assertions all the time.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
No, Instrumentalists do not make assertions about the nature of an unerlying reality. They see such endevours to be a waste of time and non-scientific.
They do when it is approperiateQuote:
An instrumentalist analysis sensory data and they beleive that they can derive generalisations from these observations by which they can use to predict future observations (useful models). They do not see any value in the additional assertion that these models are representations of an underlying reality.
there is nothing that doesn't classify as information. Your point is falsified ;)Quote:
However, it is presisely my point that they delude themselves that sensory data can be used to formulate theories. Theories have to be creatively and imaginatively postulated, and only then are they subject to testing and comparisons to sensory data we have received.
nope, you just missed the point again ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
You must have an interesting social life then ;)
"When I turn my back and stop thinking about you, you cease to exist"
I can see its usefulness, true enough :)
missed the point .... hmmm ....
lessee ... someone who treats all perceptions and theorems as possible sources of information whenever it suits him or his views ...
You could say that right now I'm in your consciousness but as soon as you dedicate your mind to something else, I become useless and non-existent.
I for one know for certain that I existed all that time, independent on your opinion of the matter and you've existed too, independent to my opinion of the matter.
Simply put, what simon and I try to say (I think) is more or less this :
If there was a way that we could have a report that was objective to any kind of personal interpretation, it would say "this object occupied that region of space and reality at that time".
And it would be totally detached from our opinions of the matter.
A ball is a ball whether you choose to think of it as existing or not.
The fact that you decide that you deem it existing when the thought enters your consciousness and fades from existence when that notion sinks in the subconsciousness has no bearing on the intrinsic existence of that object.
You're just looking at the problem posed from another angle, the personal one.
Which is a falsified newtonian reality :pQuote:
"this object occupied that region of space and reality at that time".
Only because people failed to detach it from the personal notion.
Read everything keddie :p
Nope, its a scientific "fact" :rolleyes: The approximation of quantum mechanics is much preferable for application
Kedaman
It seems that we might further our discussion by clarifying exactly what we mean by instrumentalists and realists. I took this from the following site: Instrumentalism vs. Realism
Also, the famous scientist 'Paul Feyerabend' had this to say about realism:Quote:
Generally speaking, the realist position is the belief that everything that exists has a 'self', an intrinsic nature, which scientific method, over the decades and centuries, is capable of cataloging in a way that is both correct and exact. The Universe exists in a way that is just exactly so, and by carefully sifting evidence which we get from asking the right questions humans can discover that absolute nature. Instrumentalism (i.e. the theoretical extreme) holds that scientific theories and models of the universe are valid only in the sense that they are useful in predicting events and explaining data consistently, while at the same time making no claim that anything they describe actually exists.
Quote:
Realism is desirable because it demands the proliferation of new and incompatible theories. This leads to scientific progress because it results in each theory having more empirical content that it otherwise would, since a theory’s testability is proportional to the number of potential falsifiers it has, and the production of alternative theories is the only reliable way to ensure the existence of potential falsifiers. So scientific progress comes through ‘theoretical pluralism’, allowing a plurality of incompatible theories, each of which will contribute by competition to maintaining and enhancing the testability, and thus the empirical content, of the others.
Simon
Does this mean, they deny reality?Quote:
holds that scientific theories and models of the universe are valid only in the sense that they are useful in predicting events and explaining data consistently, while at the same time making no claim that anything they describe actually exists.
If so then I have misjudged the definition of instrumentalist, otherways I disagree and say that reality is information as well.
How does quantum mechanics apply to a waste paper basket or the chair upon which you sit ? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Nope, its a scientific "fact" :rolleyes: The approximation of quantum mechanics is much preferable for application
If you are so tied up in thinking and programming you tend to forget that you are sitting on a chair. Have you ever fallen on your arse because of that non-thinking ? I doubt it.
It dismisses the objective reality, and the chair will not be existent without an observer. QM can be applied on everything and it won't cause chairs disappear for that matter.
btw, simon, scientists can't cope with that:
reality doesn't exist
can be falsified but hasn't been yet, which leads to a paradox.
You're contradicting yourself there : The chair won't exist without an observer but it doesn't mean it dissappears. Existing is it being there physically, not thinking it exists because you can see it.
Where does it go then when you leave the room and can't observe it anymore ? (I'm not a QM expert mind you)
As far as I can see you say that everything around you is dependant on how you think about it, how you perceive it.
Why is there famine and war ? Why are there waves on the sea ?
What if I see the sea as flat and non-moving, would it happen ? I doubt it.
Ok, let me explain. In QM everything exists in terms of probabilities, which depend on the observer, on how much he knows. This means that the chair exists only because you "know" it is there, and this knowing is of course a probability, quite high though.
You percept famine and war in terms of probabilities again, the more you know about them, the more existant they become. Note QM is not my area either, and I'm definitely not agreeing with QM reality, but it does provide applications in all areas, that explains wider ranges of phenomenons than classic mechanics.Quote:
Why is there famine and war ? Why are there waves on the sea ?
What if I see the sea as flat and non-moving, would it happen ? I doubt it.
Nice try keddie but you're not convincing me. You're QM-like model is a nice model, well-thought and indeed very interesting but to me, it doesn't provide enough proof that it is sufficient.
A chair is a chair and remains a chair until someone or something trashes it.
It does not exist less because I leave the room or forget about it.
It does not cease to exist because I don't know about it.
Does a store pop into existence slowly because I happen to walk in it some day ? Where is it then if I don't know about it ? How am I able to figure out the whereabouts of something that does not yet exist ?
I don't need to see the store to know it is there. There are lots of stores in Germany that I don't know about. Yet I go to Munich and imagine my surprise to find it plenty of stores. How does this mechanism work then ? They fade into existence when I search for them ? They exist on another level and will fade into this reality when needed ?
No, I don't see your theory as valid.
You're confusing with to be aware and exist, if you are not aware of a store, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, if you however become aware of it, you give it the notation of existance, until you again leave it, you think it probably still is there. The notation of existance doesn't fade, the awareness of the store, fades, and becomes part of your subconsciousness.
my model is different than QM:
existance is not a state of things, they are defined.
Thus, when it makes sense to say that something exists, I do. But it does not bring a state with it, such is the case with for instance declarative languages, compared to imperative.
I'm not confused, I just went along your theory.
I know that awareness is different from existence.
I'm just saying that because you are not aware of it, it does not mean it doesn't exist.
You seem to do so, albeit on a more esoteric level.
Perhaps it's better to talk about the usefulness of that information in a given situation :
If I'm at home I do not need to know about the chair in the office. That information is useless to me in that time and place. That may change when I enter the office again. It however does not mean that chair ceases to exist in the meanwhile.
Kedaman
I believe that you are mistakenly applying quantum principles on the macro world. This is innapropriate since entities in the macro world behave deterministically. Or, in other words, a (near) certain macro world emerges from an uncertain quantum world.Quote:
Note QM is not my area either, and I'm definitely not agreeing with QM reality, but it does provide applications in all areas, that explains wider ranges of phenomenons than classic mechanics.
Thus you have no basis to apply principles derived from quantum mechanics onto the reality with which we find ourselves in. We do not experience a quantum world because we do not exist at that scale.
I do not understand what you're getting at here. I can't see a paradox.Quote:
btw, simon, scientists can't cope with that:
reality doesn't exist
can be falsified but hasn't been yet, which leads to a paradox.
Re: Instrumentalists:
No, they do not go so far as to deny reality (that would make them solopsists). They merely refrain from making assertions about it's intrinsic nature (or indeed, if it even has an intrinsic nature).Quote:
Does this mean, they deny reality?
However, my quote from Paul Feyerabend made the point that it is these very assertions about the intrinsic nature of reality that drives scientific progress and, hence, the growth of knowledge.
not too well, I'm afraid.Quote:
I'm not confused, I just went along your theory.
No, you have missed my point. I'm coping with your definition on existance, I myself have no use for existence at a moment, in other words a state.Quote:
You seem to do so, albeit on a more esoteric level.
Exactly, as the chair is defined to permanently exist, it however doesn't mean that you can find it a projection any second. The difference between awareness and existance is obvious.Quote:
It however does not mean that chair ceases to exist in the meanwhile.
Kedaman
So it can exist when you're not aware of it (it just loses definition/meaning)? However, you go on to say that you do not ascribe instrinsic "state" to entities in the external world. If they have no intrinsic state, how can it's existance perpetuate until you next become aware of it? I put it to you that it must be ascribed "state" from the external universe with which it finds itself in.Quote:
if you are not aware of a store, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, if you however become aware of it, you give it the notation of existance, until you again leave it, you think it probably still is there.
not too well ?
Sure ?
It was you who was going on about existence and non-existence.
Afterwards you came with the distinction between awareness and existence, a distinction I was making all along.
It was you who got the semantics mixed up keddie ;)
Simon
This is mathematically incorrect, for instance evaluate (1/2)^n n=infinity (not that you can do so, but imagine that you can) this will give you 0. This is your idea. Now have n replaced with a macroscopic value, in other words a large value. It will approximate to 0, but you can't have perfection you see? Another example, Einstein's relativistic velocities, they provide a more accurate, and even radically more accurate values at higher velocities, but it still adopts the accuracy of classic newtonian velocity at low velocieties. This is just an analogy.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I believe that you are mistakenly applying quantum principles on the macro world. This is innapropriate since entities in the macro world behave deterministically. Or, in other words, a (near) certain macro world emerges from an uncertain quantum world.
Falsified with above reasons.Quote:
Thus you have no basis to apply principles derived from quantum mechanics onto the reality with which we find ourselves in. We do not experience a quantum world because we do not exist at that scale.
Ok you proposed something to hold true in reality until its been falsified, additionally it is scientific as long as it can be falsified.Quote:
I do not understand what you're getting at here. I can't see a paradox.
Hence, the fact that reality does not exist holds true in reality - which is as you see paradoxal.
Then I remain instrumentalist, and thus disagree with both you and Paul Feyerabend, with the argument that reality is also information.Quote:
No, they do not go so far as to deny reality (that would make them solopsists). They merely refrain from making assertions about it's intrinsic nature (or indeed, if it even has an intrinsic nature).
Well obviously we are in disagreement thenQuote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
not too well ?
Sure ?
It was you who was going on about existence and non-existence.
Afterwards you came with the distinction between awareness and existence, a distinction I was making all along.
It was you who got the semantics mixed up keddie ;)
Kedaman
Re: Quantum Mechanics
If I understand your analogy correctly, I think you are getting at the fact that although the uncertainty of the quntum world is greatly reduced at macroscopic levels, it is never entirely removed.Quote:
This is mathematically incorrect, for instance evaluate (1/2)^n n=infinity (not that you can do so, but imagine that you can) this will give you 0. This is your idea. Now have n replaced with a macroscopic value, in other words a large value. It will approximate to 0, but you can't have perfection you see?
If that is your point, then I accept. However, I did already concede the point that it was only near complete predictability that is achieved at macroscopic. However, these remaining uncertainties are so insignificant that they are rendered negligable.
Therefore, my point still stands.
Re: Logical paradox in falsification
Well, the assertion: "reality does not exist" is not falsifiable because a scenario could not be conceived of that would contradict it. It is untestable and consequantially unscientific (i.e. it is a purely metaphysical statement).Quote:
Ok you proposed something to hold true in reality until its been falsified, additionally it is scientific as long as it can be falsified.
Hence, the fact that reality does not exist holds true in reality - which is as you see paradoxal.
Unless you are extending upon something else you have already stated, I do not understand the implications of that statement. The point realists make is that reality exists independantly of any information you might extrapolate from it. So, to reduce it to mere information is to withdraw from the assertion that it exists outside of our perception.Quote:
Then I remain instrumentalist, and thus disagree with both you and Paul Feyerabend, with the argument that reality is also information.
Simon
Re: Quantum Mechanics
Would you like to dismiss the relativistic theories in the same manner? Would you say that the relativistic effect is insignificant and therefore it is innapropriate to use it at low velocities? Would it give less accurate results?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
If I understand your analogy correctly, I think you are getting at the fact that although the uncertainty of the quntum world is greatly reduced at macroscopic levels, it is never entirely removed.
If that is your point, then I accept. However, I did already concede the point that it was only near complete predictability that is achieved at macroscopic. However, these remaining uncertainties are so insignificant that they are rendered negligable.
Re: Logical paradox in falsification
I argue to have a method to test it, although I haven't done so. It is therefore scientific.Quote:
Well, the assertion: "reality does not exist" is not falsifiable because a scenario could not be conceived of that would contradict it. It is untestable and consequantially unscientific (i.e. it is a purely metaphysical statement).
The implication is that a instrumentalist can use the realist notation of real as an argument in an application, which gives the same results as you mentioned.Quote:
Unless you are extending upon something else you have already stated, I do not understand the implications of that statement. The point realists make is that reality exists independantly of any information you might extrapolate from it. So, to reduce it to mere information is to withdraw from the assertion that it exists outside of our perception.
To give a concrete example, lets take a mathematic formula:
R^2=X^2+Y^2
an instrumentalist can apply this to calculate points of a circle, however a realist cannot.
When the realist finds a circle in nature, he can use it by applying the formula on real circles (they would have to be real) and find this state of the position of the circle to be true.
When a instrumentalist finds a circle in nature, he does the same, and as an extra parameter, he uses reality, and finds that there is no state but instaneous truth.
Kedaman
Re: Quantum Mechanics
The relativistic effect becomes negligable at low speeds. It still applies but in a negligable manner. Therefore it would be innapropriate to make relativistic adjustments in such scenarios.Quote:
Would you like to dismiss the relativistic theories in the same manner? Would you say that the relativistic effect is insignificant and therefore it is innapropriate to use it at low velocities? Would it give less accurate results?
However, this is a very different example from quantum mechanics whereby you are asserting that observation effects the external, macroscopic world because this effect can be demonstrated at sub-atomic scales. The effect of the observer is rendered almost obsolete at macroscopic scales and therefore you have no basis resting your argument that reality exists only in terms of our perception, on it.
Re: Logical paradox in falsification
Well, that is a very bold statement indeed. Please enlighten me to how you would test such a statement (in such a way that a falsifying result might be generated). I don't believe you can and it is no good saying there's probably a way somehow, I just don't know it yet.Quote:
I argue to have a method to test it, although I haven't done so. It is therefore scientific.
Re: Intrumentalism vs. Realism
I do not agree. An instrumentalist cannot use the realist's notion of an intrinsic reality because they deny the value in it. They do not believe that (attempting to) explain the intrinsic nature of reality can be of any use to them so they preclude themselves, by definition, from using it.Quote:
The implication is that a instrumentalist can use the realist notation of real as an argument in an application, which gives the same results as you mentioned.
Simon
Re: Quantum Mechanics
Ok, at least something came clear now.
I don't have any intention for such, which you now when I've taken a closer look, repeatedly claims me to be doing. The notation of reality used by realist is to instrumentalist, equivalent with anything that applies to the perception of it, including the state of reality.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
you have no basis resting your argument that reality exists only in terms of our perception, on it.
Re: Logical paradox in falsification
Well, that is a very bold statement indeed. Please enlighten me to how you would test such a statement (in such a way that a falsifying result might be generated). I don't believe you can and it is no good saying there's probably a way somehow, I just don't know it yet.
Ok simple: Lets presume the antitesis that reality exists, now we can include all the presumptions made by all realists, and that they represents reality. proving any of them false, would prove the reality false, and such would prove the fact that reality does not exist - which would be paradoxal.
Now for this to occur, reality need to be documented into every single detail, with no contradictory content, in other words, one piece. If this is a consistent state, then it can be falsified, and thus my statement can be falsified, and thus it is both scientific, real and paradoxal :)
Re: Intrumentalism vs. Realism
I disagree, an instrumentalist would be a meaningless concept if we can't value anything at all.Quote:
I do not agree. An instrumentalist cannot use the realist's notion of an intrinsic reality because they deny the value in it. They do not believe that (attempting to) explain the intrinsic nature of reality can be of any use to them so they preclude themselves, by definition, from using it.
Kedaman
Re: Logical paradox in falsification
What claptrap! Just because somebodies assertions about reality might be proven false does not falsify the very notion that reality exists. How did you arive at that conclusion?Quote:
Ok simple: Lets presume the antitesis that reality exists, now we can include all the presumptions made by all realists, and that they represents reality. proving any of them false, would prove the reality false, and such would prove the fact that reality does not exist - which would be paradoxal.
Re: Intrumentalism vs. Realism
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Either you're saying realism is, infact, just a subset of instrumentalism or you are saying that everything that we think of as realism can be thought of in instrumentalist terms (yet the opposite cannot be achieved).Quote:
The notation of reality used by realist is to instrumentalist, equivalent with anything that applies to the perception of it, including the state of reality.
Either way, I disagree. Instrumentalism cannot contain realism because realism makes assertions that Instrumentalism refuses to make.
To me, the instrumentalist extreme seems luducrous. If the instrumentalist merely accepts statements according to how useful they are (as apposed to how true), what is it that that enables them to be useful? Why should an a scientific model yield acurate predictions for future observations if it is not at the very least an approximation of an underlying reality?
I didn't say that they do not value anything attall. I said they do not value explanations. An instrumentalist sees scientific theories as instruments of prediction and nothing more.Quote:
I disagree, an instrumentalist would be a meaningless concept if we can't value anything at all.
Simon
Re: Logical paradox in falsification
Its called logical deduction.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
What claptrap! Just because somebodies assertions about reality might be proven false does not falsify the very notion that reality exists. How did you arive at that conclusion?
Re: Intrumentalism vs. Realism
Yep, I argue that all realists are instrumentalists. Otherways you wouldn't be able to use logic :pQuote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Either you're saying realism is, infact, just a subset of instrumentalism or you are saying that everything that we think of as realism can be thought of in instrumentalist terms (yet the opposite cannot be achieved).
No, looking at the philosophy of constraint programming, or implementing inheritance in object oriented programming, realism would derive the properties of instrumentalists, and then specify further, still a realist is an instrumentalist.Quote:
Either way, I disagree. Instrumentalism cannot contain realism because realism makes assertions that Instrumentalism refuses to make.
Thats how your view of an instrumentalist extreme seems ludicrous, for the definition of an instrument to be of any use, you would need to relate them as direct derivates.Quote:
To me, the instrumentalist extreme seems luducrous. If the instrumentalist merely accepts statements according to how useful they are (as apposed to how true), what is it that that enables them to be useful? Why should an a scientific model yield acurate predictions for future observations if it is not at the very least an approximation of an underlying reality?