My view? Not this, not that... Unless, of course, you are speaking statically/conventionally.
On Jun 2, 2011, at 5:09 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > "What relevance does the term scientific realism have for those of us who > are not professional philosophers of science? Check for yourself what sort > of perspective you have on scientific assertions, regardless of your > philosophy. As you look at this page, you see a sheet of white paper with > black markings on it. Touch the page with a finger and feel its smooth > texture and its relative coolness or warmth. Now sit back and ask yourself: > do I think of the whiteness, texture, and coolness of the paper as qualities > of this material existing in it independent of my senses? Do those qualities > exist "out there," in or on the paper, unrelated to my awareness of them? > > "They certainly seem to be attributes inherent to the paper, and if we > believe that they exist in that way, then we are adherents of everyday > realism. There are problems, however, in this viewpoint. If we assert that > such qualities exist out there as they appear to, we are implicitly assuming > that our visual and tactile sense faculties play an utterly passive role in > the perception of them. That is, these faculties would act simply as clear > windows through which color, texture, and coolness flow from the object to > the perceiving subject. Much research has gone into studying the functioning > of our sense faculties, but none of it has led to the assertion that they > function passively as simple receptors of objective color, texture, sound, > and so on. Moreover, if we reflect on the wide range of visual faculties of > fish, insects, birds, and mammals, for instance, it seems exceedingly hard to > believe that they all se the world in the same way. What they see is created > in p > art by the specific types of visual organs that they have. > > "Now a new question is raised: if the above sensory impressions exist only > in relation to the subjective senses, what is really out there that causes > our senses to be stimulated so that we perceive colors and so forth? In > other words, what is the nature of the real world as it exists independent of > human perceptions? What is truly out there? This question has been asked by > thinkers of Greek antiquity, and since then a myriad of theories have been > devised to describe and explain the nature of such reality. These range from > thoroughgoing idealism to materialism, and insofar as we adopt any such > theory, we become adherents of _transcendental realism_: we believe in a > theory about the real, intrinsic nature of the world as it exists behind the > veil of the senses. It is a metaphysical perspective that purportedly > transcends sensory appearances and reaches the inherent nature of reality > that lies beyond. > > "Do we believe that the real, objective nature of color pertains to a > certain range of frequencies of electromagnetic waves? Objectively speaking, > is sound another form of wave pattern that moves through various media such > as the atmosphere and water? Are warmth and coolness really a matter of > kinetic energy of random movements of molecules that make up the physical > world? It transcends the misleading, subjective impressions of the senses > and penetrates to the objective reality that exists independent of > perception. > > "While scientific realism as defined above is no longer considered tenable > by most philosophers of science, it is still the metaphysical view that > saturates most instruction in science today. Yet this metaphysical stance is > rarely mentioned in classrooms or the popular media when discussing > scientific theories. It is simply taken for granted: a metaphysical > viewpoint that is regarded by philosophers as highly problematic is absorbed > unconsciously and uncritically. It nevertheless exerts a powerful influence > on the thoughts and attitudes of those that hold them." > > (Wallace, B. Alan, 'Choosing Reality, : A Buddhist View of Physics > and the Mind', 2003, pp.46-48) > > ___ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
