Well, now I can't resist. Eric, you said,
When people on this list talk about ... etc., don't most of them think they are talking about something real? Since you used the word would you mind clarifying what distinction you are making between what is "real" and what people only believe is "real." Or are you saying that the word "real" doesn't mean anything at all -- in which case why are you using it? By the way, you may be interested in this discussion of "scientific realism<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/>." Here's how it begins. Scientific realists hold that the characteristic product of successful scientific research is knowledge of largely theory-independent phenomena and that such knowledge is possible (indeed actual) even in those cases in which the relevant phenomena are not, in any non-question-begging sense, observable. According to scientific realists, for example, if you obtain a good contemporary chemistry textbook you will have good reason to believe (because the scientists whose work the book reports had good scientific evidence for) the (approximate) truth of the claims it contains about the existence and properties of atoms, molecules, sub-atomic particles, energy levels, reaction mechanisms, etc. Moreover, you have good reason to think that such phenomena have the properties attributed to them in the textbook independently of our theoretical conceptions in chemistry. Scientific realism is thus the common sense (or common science) conception that, subject to a recognition that scientific methods are fallible and that most scientific knowledge is approximate, we are justified in accepting the most secure findings of scientists "at face value." And here's how it ends. Scientific realism is, by the lights of most of its defenders, the sciences' own philosophy of science. Considerations of the significant philosophical challenges which it faces indicate that it can be effectively defended only by the adoption of a *meta*philosophical approach which is also closely tied to the science, *viz*., some version or other of philosophical naturalism. Here's a brief description of philosophical naturalism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29> . In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29#cite_note-0>All things and powers commonly regarded as supernatural, for example, God, souls and witchcraft, are asserted to be nonexistent. This position is commonly referred to as *metaphysical naturalism*, or sometimes as *ontological naturalism*. What is your position on these issues? -- RussA On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <e...@psu.edu> wrote: > Miles: "I think if we look honestly there is not a single thing > that we can drill into that has ultimate reality." > > Marcks: "But there > are a lot of things that can be controlled very effectively and with > predictable failure rates." > > Miles: "Good [we agree]... [but] I'm not > sure how many people -- including "scientists" who should know better -- still > believe in such." > > -- > > It's funny, I have the general notion that "scientists" shouldn't know > better. I don't mean that based on their intelligence, but I think it is > much easier for scientists to go about doing the stuff they do, and they do > it better, if they think they are REALLY doing it. Albeit, it may be fun to > predict where a cannon ball is going to land, or what the orbit of the > planets will be, but if people didn't think they were finding out something > "real" about "gravity" I doubt the activity would have been as engaging. > > For an example in a science that seems less useful to me: It always amazes > me that social and personality psychologists can go around thinking that the > things they study are "real"... extroversion, emotional intelligence, > in-group preference, etc.... Yet, I also have the feeling that if they for > one moment thought as I did, that they were (at best) just playing a strange > prediction game, the whole enterprise would suddenly grind to a halt. Ah, > the time and money that would be saved. > > Of course, the social and personality psychologists would likely say the > same thing about my work, reinforcing my point: I to go about my work just > fine, at least in part, because (barring the occasional metaphysical spaz) I > go about my day to day business with the firm belief that I am REALLY > studying things. > > When people on this list talk about emergence, complexity, intrinsic > organization, rule governed behavior, consciousness, software usability, > threshold phenomenon, keyboard preferences, etc., don't most of them think > they are talking about something real? > > Eric > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
