Download Realism, Antirealism and Naturalism AND Evolution

PART I
Section A: Realism
A Brief Summary of Realism



Realism in modern philosophy is a doctrine according to
which ordinary objects perceived by senses, such as
tables and chairs, have an existence independent of their
being perceived.
It is contrary to the idealism of philosophers such as
George Berkeley or Immanuel Kant.
In its extreme form, also called as full-blown and naïve
realism, the things perceived by the senses are believed
to be exactly what they appear to be. In more
sophisticated versions, known as critical realism, a
relationship between the object and the observer is
establish in order to account for perceptual errors (such
as illusion, hallucination, and sensory physiological
degenerations)
What Full-Blown Scientific Realists
Hold about Science:


Scientific realism is a
philosophical doctrine that
advocates acceptance of the
most secure findings of
scientists "at the face value.“
and as the "only conceivable
explanation" of science's
predictive and manipulative
successes.
Full-Blown SR trust that both
Theories and Data reflect or
correspond to the world.
Support for Scientific Realism ?



Atomic Theory
For many centuries
people envisioned an
elementary particle:
atom, and were
theorizing about atoms.
Only recently atoms could
be seen under the
microscope and proved to
correspond well to the
more refined modern
atomic theories.
SR and Theory of “Rabbit in the
Hat”:

What is in the hat ?
???
 Clue: It moves.
Worm in the hat
 Clue: It’s warm
Baby Pig in the hat
 Clue: It’s furry
Cat in the hat
 Clue: It has long ears
Rabbit in the hat
 YES IT IS A RABBIT IN THE
HAT !
Scientific Realist Conclusion:
Good Hypothesis brings
one closer and closer to
reality, until the hypothesis
equals the truth.
Section B: Antirealists
Are all Antirealists alike ?
Theory Data
FB
Accept Accept
Realist
s
Global Reject Reject
Antirea
lists
Instru Reject Accept
mentali
sts


No. There are those
who accept data but
not theories and they
are called
instrumentalists.
Many positivists are
instrumentalists.
And there those who
reject both data and
facts, so called fullblown antirealists.
A Brief Summary of Antirealism
There are two types of antirealists: instrumentalists and global
antirealists.
Instrumentalism:
A variety of pragmatism developed at the University of Chicago by John
Dewey and his colleagues.
Thoughts, [spooky] ideas and theories are considered by instrumentalists
as a mean to an end (way to solve difficulties and cope with new
situations). And these do not bear resemblance to reality.
While empirical observations do indeed provide us the accurate sense of
reality.
Global Antirealists:
A variety of extreme skepticism. Global Antirealists deny not only the
resemblance to truth of theories, but of data and observations as well.
While a healthy doze of skepticism is not only important but essential for
science, extreme skepticism produces no science (like in “taxes dilemma”:
0% tax rate [skepticism]: no public goods [science] as no money for
public goods will be available [no one will sort among tons of rubbish to
identify ounces of good science]; while 100% tax rate [skepticism] means
no public goods [science] either as no one is willing to work to pay taxes
[all science will be discarded and no produced])
Global Antirealism = Anti-science ?


Ironically while moderate
skepticism (like that of Carl Sagan
one of the founders of Skeptical
Inquire magazine) is very healthy
for science. Extreme skepticism,
instead of being extremely healthy,
is extremely harmful to science.
This is because by denying
everything as “real’, anything can
be “real”.
Thus for “true” global antirealists
there is no distinction on truth
between “modern cosmology” and
“medieval church cosmology” and
accept any theories on matter of
belief [“my intuition say so”],
traditions [“my bible say so”] or
convenience [“my publisher and
advertiser say so”]. Indeed global
antirealists scientists are antiscience. And being such is as
paradoxical as being a nihilistic
ethicist.
What Instrumentalists Hold about
Science ?:


Instrumentalists trust
that only Data
reflects or
corresponds to the
world.
Theories are often
useful heuristics to
discover Data, but
ultimately fictions.
Support for Instrumentalists’
Position: Ether Case
Ether

No
Ether



Ether
?
To explain how light moves
through cosmos scientists
hypothesized of a all-penetrating
substance called ether.
Eventually a storm created by
earth as it frictions with ether was
predicted but that wasn't observed
and Einstein’s Special Theory of
Relativity replaced ether.
Before ether was declared a
fiction it was factored out in
equations by physicists and the
concept often proved useful, even
if false.
INSTRUMENTALISTS’
CONCLUSION: Theories are just
crutches, they help support ones
walking [science progress] but can
never replace legs [data].
Instrumentalists and Theory of
“Rabbit in the Hat”:

What is in the hat ?
???
 Clue: It moves.
Worm in the hat

Clue: It’s warm

Clue: It’s furry

Clue: It has long ears
Warm worm in the hat (due to
heat in the room)
furry warm worm in the hat (due
to fur in the hat)
furry warm worm in the hat with
long ears (due to radiation in
the room).

NO, IT IS A RABBIT, NOT A
FURRY WARM WORM WITH
long EARS IN THE HAT !
Instrumentalist’s Conclusion:
Therefore All Hypothesizes
and Theories are Fictional
Global Antirealists and Theory of
the “Rabbit in the Hat”:

What is in the hat ?

Clue: It moves.

Clue: It’s warm

Clue: It’s furry

Clue: It has long ears

IT IS A RABBIT IN THE HAT. TAKE
A LOOK!
???
???
???
???
???
???
Global Antirealists’ Conclusion:
By being presented with the
“facts” our knowledge about
truth doesn’t increase. Even
seeing, does not mean
believing.
Section C: Naturalism
A Brief Summary of Naturalism



Naturalism conceive nature as the whole of
reality and can be understood only through
scientific investigation.
It denies the existence of the supernatural and
reduces metaphysics, which studies the ultimate
nature of reality, and theology which suggests
design and metaphysical necessity in nature to
little relevance.
Since the naturalism denies a transcendent
ultimate end for humankind (ultimate is beyond
discovery), it suggests that values must be found
within the social context, a form of social
contract (which preferably is humanistic and
utilitarian).

According to naturalism realism and
anti-realism miss the point when the
conceive a dualistic relationship
between theories on one side, and
"the world" on the other . According to
naturalists, theories are human are
indeed constructions [as antirealists
suggest] but we experience the world
us through our theories [as realists
suggest]. Thus it is irrelevant in
comparing theories to the world, as it
is irrelevant in comparing “drivers view
of car” with “eagle eye view of car”. (a
driver can never be an eagle, and once
he/she exits the car, cease to be a
driver, similarly a human can never
have a “god eye view” (or “god-of-thegaps eye view”) and once one ceases
to be a human it cannot have any
perceptions at all.
Some Myths about Naturalists
All Naturalists are Relativists.
Naturalists are NOT relativists: Some theories
are more coherent to and correspond better
with current knowledge than
others.

All Naturalists are extremely skeptical.
Naturalists are NOT “hardliner” skeptics: while
naturalists generally agree that our
perception is not perfect, they think that
with advancement of technology
[microscopes; telescopes] our perception of
reality increase.
 All Naturalists are
Communists/Nihilists/Social
Darwinists:
Naturalism is a conception about scientific
theories not economical or social theories.
While some naturalists are communists.
Some are nihilists. And some are Social
Darwinists. Many are not. In fact most
naturalists leave a fruitful and happy life as
naturalistic conception of the world redeems
one of from fear of afterlife retribution (and
even reward, as Isaac Asimov putted in one
of his science fiction novel: “the hope for
death is what keeps me alive”) and
reconciles one with the “best truth a human
can perceive”.

Naturalism and Theory of “Rabbit in
the Hat”:

What is in the hat ?

Clue: It moves.

probably a worm in the hat.
Clue: It’s warm

Clue: It has long ears
Insufficient data.
To the best of my knowledge it is
To the best of my knowledge it is
probably a baby Pig in the hat
 Clue: It’s furry
To the best of my knowledge it is
probably a cat in the hat
To the best of my knowledge it is
probably a rabbit in the hat.

YES IT IS A RABBIT IN THE HAT !
Naturalist Conclusion: Good Hypothesis
brings one closer and closer to reality,
until the hypothesis equals the truth,
but until that point we need to
maintain a doze of healthy scientific
skepticism and make our conclusions
tentative.
PART II
Realism and Evolutionary Theory

According to full-blown
scientific realists theories
that Charles Darwin
presented were more or
less accurate, and in
correspondence with
reality, if not complete.
And data that seems to
support evolution is quite
accurate and in
correspondence with
reality as well.
Thus Scientific Realist Would:
Accept current
classification of animal
kingdom as accurate
and real (matches
data)
Accept macroevolution
as accurate and real
(matches data).
Accept microevolution
as accurate and real.
(matches data;
observable)
Accept English Peppered
Moths as real evidence
for microevolution.
(observable)
Accept fossils of
Archaeopteryx as real
evidence for
macroevolution
Instrumentalism and Evolutionary
Theory


Instrumentalists are likely to reject
macroevolution theory as real, as
it can be observed, however
accept microevolution (variations
within species) as it was observed
in finches and bacteria.
However while rejecting
macroevolution theory, as real,
they will admit its usefulness for
modern biology. they will accept
the evidence that support. They
will also accept visible evidence
for macroevolution, as fossils of
Archaeopteryx (some concerns
might arouse among
instrumentalists about carbon
dating techniques used to
determine age of Archaeopteryx:
whether they are theoretical or
factual)
Thus Instrumentalism Would:
Reject current
classification of animal
kingdom as accurate
and real
(unobservable)
Reject macroevolution
as accurate and real
(unobservable)
Accept microevolution
as accurate and real
(observable in
bacteria and birds).
Accept English
Peppered Moths as real
evidence for
microevolution
(observable).
Accept fossils of
Archaeopteryx as real
evidence for macroevolut
(observable)
Global Antirealism and Evolutionary
Theory

Global Antirealists will
reject evolutionary theory
unambiguously. They will
reject tenets of the theory
as well the evidence that
supports it. For them
evidence are mere
“Darwin Icons” (or worse
“devil icons”) and are
irrelevant on establishing
truth. In fact truth cannot
be ever established (so
lets us pray…).
Thus Global Antirealists Would:
Reject current
classification of animal
kingdom as accurate
and real.
Reject macroevolution
as accurate and real.
Reject microevolution
as accurate and real
(as it can be observed).
Reject English
Peppered Moths as real
evidence for
microevolution.
Accept fossils of
Archaeopteryx as real
evidence for
macroevolution
Naturalism and Evolutionary
Theory
According to naturalism the
occurrence of both macroevolution
and microevolution is plausible. And
we can accept theories that support
evolution as readily as facts.
However our acceptance should be
tentative, and as we gather new
evidence for or against evolution our
theories should change accordingly.
That is not to say that in the face of the
facts Intelligent Design merits to be
mentioned along evolution, nor could
be ever a place for supernatural
creation [though if we gather
enough evidence, which highly
implausible, for alien creation then
“alien creationism” can constitute a
completive theory to evolution].

Thus Naturalism Would:
Question current
classification of animal
kingdom as accurate and
real (as it is likely that
there would be many
changes to it in the futur
Tentatively Accept
macroevolution as
accurate and real.
Tentatively Accept
microevolution as
accurate and real.
Accept English
Peppered Moths as real
evidence for
microevolution.
Accept fossils of
Archaeopteryx as real
evidence for macroevolu
Conclusion
Evolutionary theory seems to be better supported by the
naturalistic conception of the world as it integrates
harmoniously a doze of healthy skepticism from
instrumentalists with a doze of acceptance or reality from
realists. Plus it brings its own wise different approach to
science, instead of deluding ourselves that we at look
science objectively through objective senses, or deluding
ourselves that we look at science subjectively through
subjective senses, we should know that our senses are
subjective, but nonetheless try to look at science
objectively.
Credits
Lynn Hankinson Nelson
Professor, Department of Philosophy
University of Washington
Microsoft Encarta 2003
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/