In chapter four of Philosophy of Science, Okasha introduces the opposing views of realism and anti-realism. Realist hold, “That the aim of science is to provide a true description of the world.” (p.59), where as anti-realists claim, “The aim of science is to provide a true description of the observable part of the world.” (p.59). So to an anti-realist, only observable entities in our world that can be directly observed by humans should be considered as truths and unobservable entities should be viewed as fictions that may help produce a convenient prediction. So what does this ultimately mean when discussing our reality as a whole?
Anthony A.C. Grayling said in a interview with Robert Kuhn that in order to discuss this, we must first remind ourselves of two things, one, “A lot of our judgement about reality (everyday, non scientific) are relative to those facts about us.” For example, the size of couches, the height of doors, the length of pants… these are all carved into what they are in order to fit us within our reality. What things really are deep down to their fundamental existence is up to physics to discover. The second is, “The way our minds function, is that they provide a great deal of material to the incoming data… so that we can relate to it successfully.” This leads to an objective result, however this does not leave out the subjective results, how it seems to us. So how do we separate the two? Or can we? Grayling explains that one idea to keep in mind is that we are participators. We are not merely sitting back and watching things happen, we are in the present and are ourselves very much an active part of it. So by repeat participation we are able to sort out on our own what is objective and what is subjective to a certain degree, enough for “us to survive” according to Grayling. But does this really give us a clear idea of what is real and what is not?
Our entire world as we know it is filtered through our senses, our biological instruments if you will. Our eyes, ears, mouth, nose and touch all filter data into our brains where it is sorted and creates what we perceive. So then what of scientists who use instruments to filter data on a macro or micro level, such as a telescope or a microscope? Is this not so different? A realist would say no and agree that data obtained by either instrument could be used to find out truths in our world. An anti-realist would perhaps argue that up to a certain degree these instruments could aid in finding our truths as long as they were observable, but surly there comes a point to where entities, such as black holes or electrons, cannot be observed and can no longer be accepted as truth but merely predictions.
link:
Grayling is right, we are participants and not mere spectators. We don't have the luxury of disavowing the way things seem, in deference to pure theory. So we should always ask ourselves what we gain and lose from the realist/anti-realists responses, in practical terms. Does a realist view of electrons, say, help us create more reliable technologies? My view is that we can suspend final judgment on that debate, so long as we recognize that the "macro" level of everyday experience requires a form of discourse that reflects our common experience, just as a "micro" level of theoretical experience must be expressed in terms counter to common experience and common sense. There's room for both ways of speaking and thinking, and in fact there's a need for both. We just need to be clear about which level we're working at, at a given time.
ReplyDelete