> On 22 Dec 2018, at 13:40, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 3:42:04 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 21 Dec 2018, at 03:22, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> The universe we see is the only one for which we have any concrete evidence, >> and that evidence is indubitable. > > That is of course a strong evidence for a physical reality, but unless we buy > the Aristotelian theology, “seeing” is not an evidence for a metaphysical > reality. > > I think the whole problem is here: a confusion for the evidence for physics > with an evidence for a metaphysics. This has worked for 1500 years, only by > terror, violence, and then habits, and the constant hiding of the (mind-body) > problem under the rug (notably through “fairy tales”). > > Physics is a wonderful science, but to make physics systematically, without > argument nor evidence, into a metaphysics is a form of “modern” > charlatanism, when made consciously, and still a form of obscurantism when > done by ignorance. With science, doubts are mandatory. > > Bruno > > > > Physics (a collection of "accepted" formulated [in mathematical language] > theories - the Standard Model, General Relativity - and "pending" ones - > string theory, cosmic inflation, loop quantum gravity...) is a type of > fictionalism. But is a different "genre" of fiction than mathematics. > > Fictions, Inference, and Realism > Mauricio Suárez > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5013/1/Fictions%2C_Inference%2C_and_Realism.pdf > > > Abstract: It is often assumed without argument that fictionalism in the > philosophy of science contradicts scientific realism. This paper is a > critical analysis of this assumption. The kind of fictionalism that is at > present discussed in philosophy of science is characterized, and > distinguished from fictionalism in other areas. A distinction is then drawn > between forms of fictional representation, and two competing accounts of > fiction in science are discussed. I then outline explicitly what I take to be > the argument for the incompatibility of scientific realism with fictionalism. > I argue that some of its premises are unwarranted, and are moreover > questionable from a fictionalist perspective. The conclusion is that > fictionalism is neutral in the realism-antirealism debate, pulling neither in > favor nor against scientific realism.
That confirms my felling that fictionalism will not get something new here. All theologies are the fiction from the point of view of they antipodes ontologies. For a monist materialist, mind/consciousness is fiction. For a monist idealist, matter is fiction. Fictionalism is just a negative way to present some ontology, it seems to me. It is “your god is not my god”. Bruno > > > - pt > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
