Do the Sciences Tell Us What the World is Really Like?

[Sunstone]

Do the sciences tell us what the world is really like?

The Sides to the Debate

Those who believe the sciences do tell us what the world is really like are called "realists". Those who don't, can be called "non-realists", but are most often called "anti-realists". However, I find the term "anti-realist" to be a bit misleading, so I'm sticking with "non-realist" here.

A person can combine the two positions by being a realist in some ways and a non-realist in other ways. And just to further confuse things, there are even more positions than merely those of realism and non-realism -- "constructive empiricism", for instance -- that we won't discuss here due to space limitations and to keep things simple.

Realism

There are several kinds of realism. To keep things as simple as possible, I am going to create a sort of idealized version of what's called "strong realism", then lie to you by calling it totally representative of all the various forms of realism.

Thus, realism can be described (by me) as embracing at least four main ideas:

First, realism takes the metaphysical position that there exists a reality independent of our minds -- that is, an "objective" reality or world.

Next, it asserts that this objective world is the ultimate cause of our empirical observations. That is, the cause of what we see, taste, touch, etc.

Third, realism asserts that the aim of the sciences is to give a literally true account of the objective world. But realists do not insist the account be exactly true -- just approximately true is good enough provided accurate predictions can be derived from it.

Last, it asserts that the sciences are capable of progressively getting closer and closer to providing such a literally true account -- although maybe they will never provide a complete and final such account.​

As promised, what I have just now given you is totally representative of all the various forms of realism.

Non-realism

Non-realism, like realism, also takes several forms. To save space, here's an idealized version of it that you can take to the bank as totally representative of all the various forms:

Usually, non-realism does not actually reject the notion that there is an objective reality (although some forms do). Instead, it typically states that it does not matter one way or another whether or not there is an objective reality.

That's because -- to the non-realist -- the key question is not whether the sciences are literally true, but whether they are functionally true. To be functionally true, a scientific theory would need to accurately predict observations, but it would not need to explain them in terms of being caused by an objective reality.

For instance, suppose you had a mathematical formula that accurately predicted each and every observation you could make about the position of Mars in the solar system. A strict non-realist might call it a day and go home. But a realist would want to know what caused Mars to be observed in those places at those times.​

I swear that's a complete and total representation of all the various forms of non-realism.

A Few Advantages and Disadvantages

One big advantage of non-realism is that it avoids metaphysical speculations like the plague. Metaphysical debates can be endless. Non-realism sidesteps them by deeming metaphysics unimportant.

One big advantage of realism is that, if true, it would explain why our best scientific theories are spectacularly successful in terms of making predictions -- predictions that can be used to create technologies, new theories, etc. That is, realists believe they are successful because there really is an objective world out there. As Hilary Putman liked to say, Realism "...is the only philosophy that doesn't make the success of science a miracle."

Or, as Martin Gardner put it:

"Realism is not a dirty word. If you wonder why all scientists, philosophers, and ordinary people, with rare exceptions, have been and are unabashed realists, let me tell you why. No scientific conjecture has been more overwhelmingly confirmed. No hypothesis offers a simpler explanation of why the Andromeda galaxy spirals in every photograph, why all electrons are identical, why the laws of physics are the same in Tokyo as in London or on Mars, why they were there before life evolved and will be there if all life perishes, why all persons can close their eyes and feel eight corners, six faces and twelve edges on a cube, and why your bedroom looks the same when you wake up in the morning."​

However, Collin Howson has argued that Putman, Gardner and others who argue the success of the sciences cannot be a miracle commit the base-rate fallacy, which is too complex to explain here.

Last, non-realism does not suffer from needing to explain why there can sometimes be two or more models of something, each of which seems equally true. That is, there can sometimes be a model A and a model B that each describe the same thing and for which there are no observations incompatible with either model. Strict realism assumes one model is true and the other false -- even if it can't decide which is which -- but non-realism does not need to make that assumption. It can say both A and B are functionally true (i.e. of equal predictive value).

Scientism

Realism is sometimes confused with scientism, but the two notions are very different. Scientism holds that the sciences can in principle explain everything -- all reality -- such that anything which cannot ultimately be explained by the sciences is not real.

On other hand, realism admits the possibility that somethings might exist which the sciences cannot explain. At most, realism might claim that the sciences can in principle explain every empirical observation in terms of an objective reality.

Questions? Comments?

 

[exchemist]

Do the sciences tell us what the world is really like?

Those who believe the sciences do tell us what the world is really like are called "realists". Those who don't, are called "nonrealists", and often "antirealists" -- although to call them "antirealists" can be a bit misleading.

Realism

There are several kinds of realism. To keep things as simple as possible, I am going to create a sort of idealized version of what's called "strong realism", then lie to you by calling it totally representative of all the various forms of realism.

Thus, realism can be described as embracing at least four main ideas:

First, realism takes the metaphysical position that there exists a reality independent of our minds -- that is, an "objective" reality or world.

Next, it asserts that this objective world is the ultimate cause of our empirical observations. That is, the cause of what we see, taste, touch, etc.

Third, realism asserts that the aim of the sciences is to give a literally true account of the objective world. But realists do not insist the account be exactly true -- just approximately true is good enough.

Last, it asserts that the sciences are capable of progressively getting closer and closer to providing such an account -- although maybe they will never provide a complete and final true account.​

As promised, what I have just now given you is totally representative of all the various forms of realism.

Nonrealism

Nonrealism, like realism, also takes several forms. To save space, here's an idealized version of it that you can take to the bank as totally representative of all the various forms:

Usually, nonrealism does not actually reject the notion that there is an objective reality (although some forms do). Instead, it typically states that it does not matter one way or another whether or not there is an objective reality.

That's because -- to the nonrealist -- the key question is not whether the sciences are literally true, but whether they are functionally true. To be functionally true, a scientific theory would need to accurately predict observations, but it would not need to explain them in terms of being caused by an objective reality.

For instance, suppose you had a mathematical formula that accurately predicted each and every observation you could make about the position of Mars in the solar system. A nonrealist might call it a day and go home. But a realist would want to know what caused Mars to be observed in those places at those times.​

I swear that's a complete and total representation of all the various forms of nonrealism.

A Few Advantages and Disadvantages

One big advantage of nonrealism is that it avoids metaphysical speculations like the plague. Metaphysical debates can be endless. Nonrealism sidesteps them by deeming metaphysics unimportant.

One big advantage of realism is that, if true, it would explain why our best scientific theories are spectacularly successful in terms of making predictions -- predictions that can be used to create technologies, new theories, etc. That is, realists believe they are successful because there really is an objective world out there. As Hilary Putman liked to say, Realism "...is the only philosophy that doesn't make the success of science a miracle."

Or, as Martin Gardner put it:

"Realism is not a dirty word. If you wonder why all scientists, philosophers, and ordinary people, with rare exceptions, have been and are unabashed realists, let me tell you why. No scientific conjecture has been more overwhelmingly confirmed. No hypothesis offers a simpler explanation of why the Andromeda galaxy spirals in every photograph, why all electrons are identical, why the laws of physics are the same in Tokyo as in London or on Mars, why they were there before life evolved and will be there if all life perishes, why all persons can close their eyes and feel eight corners, six faces and twelve edges on a cube, and why your bedroom looks the same when you wake up in the morning."​

However, Collin Howson has argued that Putman, Gardner and others who argue the success of the sciences cannot be a miracle commit the base-rate fallacy, which is too complex to explain here.

Last, nonrealism does not suffer from needing to explain why there can sometimes be two or more models of something, each of which seems equally true. That is, there can sometimes be a model A and a model B that each describe the same thing and for which there are no observations incompatible with either model. Realism assumes one model is true and the other false -- even if it can't decide which is which -- but nonrealism does not need to make that assumption. It can say both A and B are functionally true.

Scientism

Realism is sometimes confused with scientism, but the two notions are very different. Scientism holds that the sciences can in principle explain everything -- all reality -- such that anything which cannot ultimately be explained by the sciences is not real.

On other hand, realism admits the possibility that somethings might exist which the sciences cannot explain. At most, realism might claim that the sciences can in principle explain every empirical observation in terms of an objective reality.

Questions? Comments?

As you describe them, these two options seem to me to make a bit of a false dichotomy. As a chemist, I am very familiar with the existence of different models for various phenomena. We choose the model appropriate to the task at hand and do not get hung up on constantly trying to reconcile the models to one another. You, apparently, would deem this a non-realist approach.

However, I do not believe many physical scientists would accept the notion that there is no objective reality to model. So long as you keep firmly in mind the idea that theories are models of reality rather than reality itself, there need be no conflict between the existence of multiple models and the existence of a single objective reality, of which each model displays a number of facets.

At the same time I think it is possible that many physical scientists may refuse to be drawn into a discussion on whether objective reality exists. For them what is important is the observed phenomena and the modelling of them. Digressions into metaphysics will probably bore them.

 

[PureX]

Science doesn't really "explain" anything in terms of uncovering the "truth of it". It simply reveals limited and relative aspects of functionality within the physical realm. Knowing how, physically, the sky appears to be 'blue' in the eyes of a man does not reveal the truth of anything but how the sky appears to be blue in the eyes of a man.

 

[Duke_Leto]

From your description of realism and nonrealism, I don’t quite understand the advantages of realism you list. If the nonrealist position is simply that sciences are functionally true, then why should that discourage learning about or applying sciences, since whether or not they’re true models of reality is irrelevant to the good they seem to bring?

I don’t know anything at all about philosophy, so I apologize if I’m missing something.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Science doesn't really "explain" anything in terms of uncovering the "truth of it". It simply reveals limited and relative aspects of functionality within the physical realm. Knowing how, physically, the sky appears to be 'blue' in the eyes of a man does not reveal the truth of anything but how the sky appears to be blue in the eyes of a man.

That’s just an exercise in tautology.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm probably a realist. I'm unhappy with incomplete explanations and am used to having my questions answered eventually if not immediately. That is I am a realist unless it takes a lot of work. Then I am a non-realist.

Do the sciences tell us what the world is really like?

Probably not. The problem with the Sciences is that they have successes, but they are always incomplete and can be abused, ignored, forgotten, maligned.

In the end most people are only interested in the Sciences for the gifts that they give: TV, weapons, communication, automation, etc. Lots of people like Nylon, but they don't know the formula for Nylon. The formula doesn't matter. Only the Nylon matters and only in jackets and in parachutes. Who can remember formulas? We know that somewhere in a book or something there is a formula, but almost nobody wants to read that book.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do the sciences tell us what the world is really like?

Another interesting OP thanks. Science is so integral to our modern lives, its useful to speculate about what it is and isn't. What are its strengths and limitations? Despite working in the scientific field of medicine I don't often reflect on the nature of science.

Those who believe the sciences do tell us what the world is really like are called "realists". Those who don't, are called "nonrealists", and often "antirealists" -- although to call them "antirealists" can be a bit misleading.

Realism

There are several kinds of realism. To keep things as simple as possible, I am going to create a sort of idealized version of what's called "strong realism", then lie to you by calling it totally representative of all the various forms of realism.

Thus, realism can be described as embracing at least four main ideas:

First, realism takes the metaphysical position that there exists a reality independent of our minds -- that is, an "objective" reality or world.

That must be a fundamental principle.

Science can help us understand and know things to be true, that wouldn't be readily apparent without modern science. For example, the existence of micro-organisms has clearly existed long before anyone ever knew they existed.

Next, it asserts that this objective world is the ultimate cause of our empirical observations. That is, the cause of what we see, taste, touch, etc.

Our observations are clearly the result of both the objective world and our senses. If our senses didn't exist or were impaired we wouldn't be able to perceive objects. Likewise if the objects did not exist they could not be perceived.

Third, realism asserts that the aim of the sciences is to give a literally true account of the objective world. But realists do not insist the account be exactly true -- just approximately true is good enough.

That is but one aim. Another may be functional as described below.

Of course in one sense, science as a human construct has the aim we assign to it...much like a hammer can be used to build or as weapon.

It could be reasonably argued that science exists as part of objective reality, so its nature is independent of our values.

Last, it asserts that the sciences are capable of progressively getting closer and closer to providing such an account -- although maybe they will never provide a complete and final true account.

That is true, and while we may be able to account for much more than we could possibly imagine a couple of centuries ago, we may never come close to ultimate reality. That would be particularly true if a metaphysical dimension beyond our sense perception existed.

As promised, what I have just now given you is totally representative of all the various forms of realism.

Nonrealism

Nonrealism, like realism, also takes several forms. To save space, here's an idealized version of it that you can take to the bank as totally representative of all the various forms:

Usually, nonrealism does not actually reject the notion that there is an objective reality (although some forms do). Instead, it typically states that it does not matter one way or another whether or not there is an objective reality.

That makes sense in that much of what happens within us such as biochemical reactions on a cellular level is of no real consequence to the majority of people.

That's because -- to the nonrealist -- the key question is not whether the sciences are literally true, but whether they are functionally true. To be functionally true, a scientific theory would need to accurately predict observations, but it would not need to explain them in terms of being caused by an objective reality.

Functional truth is one the outstanding strengths of science in that it works. The ability to describe the objective world and make predictions is just as important.

For instance, suppose you had a mathematical formula that accurately predicted each and every observation you could make about the position of Mars in the solar system. A nonrealist might call it a day and go home. But a realist would want to know what caused Mars to be observed in those places at those times.

That is true.

A Few Advantages and Disadvantages

One big advantage of nonrealism is that it avoids metaphysical speculations like the plague. Metaphysical debates can be endless. Nonrealism sidesteps them by deeming metaphysics unimportant.

Scientific explanations OTOH would be extremely valuable.

Understanding spiritual principles such as karma and dharma may have equally valuable practical implications for making sense of social reality. For example if I steal and lie, then people are less likely to trust me. That's not going to help us with the bubonic plague though!

One big advantage of realism is that, if true, it would explain why our best scientific theories are spectacularly successful in terms of making predictions -- predictions that can be used to create technologies, new theories, etc. That is, realists believe they are successful because there really is an objective world out there. As Hilary Putman liked to say, Realism "...is the only philosophy that doesn't make the success of science a miracle."

True, although many scientific discoveries come about through simple trial and error and may be reduced to being in the right place at the right time (ie luck).

Last, nonrealism does not suffer from needing to explain why there can sometimes be two or more models of something, each of which seems equally true. That is, there can sometimes be a model A and a model B that each describe the same thing and for which there are no observations incompatible with either model. Realism assumes one model is true and the other false -- even if it can't decide which is which -- but nonrealism does not need to make that assumption. It can say both A and B are functionally true.

Appreciating the limitations and strengths of differing scientific models such as those concerning the nature of subatomic particles are an essential part of being a competent scientist.

Scientism

Realism is sometimes confused with scientism, but the two notions are very different. Scientism holds that the sciences can in principle explain everything -- all reality -- such that anything which cannot ultimately be explained by the sciences is not real.

On other hand, realism admits the possibility that somethings might exist which the sciences cannot explain. At most, realism might claim that the sciences can in principle explain every empirical observation in terms of an objective reality.

Questions? Comments?

Science clearly can't explain everything but its explanatory and utilitarian value is outstanding.

That's enough inane rambling from me for one evening.

Interesting OP.

 

[exchemist]

I'm probably a realist. I'm unhappy with incomplete explanations and am used to having my questions answered eventually if not immediately. That is I am a realist unless it takes a lot of work. Then I am a non-realist.


Probably not. The problem with the Sciences is that they have successes, but they are always incomplete and can be abused, ignored, forgotten, maligned.

In the end most people are only interested in the Sciences for the gifts that they give: TV, weapons, communication, automation, etc. Lots of people like Nylon, but they don't know the formula for Nylon. The formula doesn't matter. Only the Nylon matters and only in jackets and in parachutes. Who can remember formulas? We know that somewhere in a book or something there is a formula, but almost nobody wants to read that book.

This is a philosophical issue, so what most people are interested in is not really the point, it seems to me.

However I do agree that the realist position seems intuitively more in tune with that curiosity about the physical world that a person needs to have if they want to study science. What is it that drives a person to keeping asking "why?" as one goes to deeper and deeper levels of explanation? The non-realist position would seem to be limiting the scope of enquiry, or saying that at some point it no longer matters.

 

[ChristineM]

Reality :
1 - the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
2 - the state or quality of having existence or substance.

Science :
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Evidence :
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.​

Both reality and science are well defined, the key point is, to be real something (whatever) must exist

While science requires evidence (through observation, measurement or experiment)

In my view something must be real to be evidenced

So yes science tells what the part of the world it has observed, measured or experimented on is real.

If it is not real then there will be no evidence and so on no consequence to science

 

[Sunstone]

As you describe them, these two options seem to me to make a bit of a false dichotomy.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I certainly gave that impression in my efforts to simplify things. I've edited the OP to make clearer that realism and non-realism are not a dichotomy, and that people do not fall neatly into one or the other category.

As a chemist, I am very familiar with the existence of different models for various phenomena. We choose the model appropriate to the task at hand and do not get hung up on constantly trying to reconcile the models to one another. You, apparently, would deem this a non-realist approach.

However, I do not believe many physical scientists would accept the notion that there is no objective reality to model. So long as you keep firmly in mind the idea that theories are models of reality rather than reality itself, there need be no conflict between the existence of multiple models and the existence of a single objective reality, of which each model displays a number of facets.

At the same time I think it is possible that many physical scientists may refuse to be drawn into a discussion on whether objective reality exists. For them what is important is the observed phenomena and the modelling of them. Digressions into metaphysics will probably bore them.

I seem to have also given you the impression that realism, etc have something to do with how to conduct science. They do not actually have much to do with that. They are more philosophical questions about whether or not scientific theories tell us what the world is really like. And yes, I realize that bores a whole lot of people -- not just scientists. But I'm not posting this stuff for those folks who are bored by it, am I?

 

[Sunstone]

From your description of realism and nonrealism, I don’t quite understand the advantages of realism you list. If the nonrealist position is simply that sciences are functionally true, then why should that discourage learning about or applying sciences, since whether or not they’re true models of reality is irrelevant to the good they seem to bring?

I don’t know anything at all about philosophy, so I apologize if I’m missing something.

The question of whether the sciences tell us what the world is really like has few if any practical applications or consequences. To me, it's a bit like asking whether there's a god or not. Some people can go through life perfectly happy to seldom or never think about whether there's a god or not. For others, it's a vital question that can even affect their sense of well being.

 

[Willamena]

One big advantage of realism is that, if true, it would explain why our best scientific theories are spectacularly successful in terms of making predictions -- predictions that can be used to create technologies, new theories, etc. That is, realists believe they are successful because there really is an objective world out there. As Hilary Putman liked to say, Realism "...is the only philosophy that doesn't make the success of science a miracle."

But, to the anti-Realist, that's exactly what it does. The unquestioned truth of the objective reality is essentially trust in a causal miracle-place, meant to be ultimately explicative of anything and everything if only mankind can uncover its secrets.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am certain that there are subtleties at work here which I am quite unaware of, but from the OP it sure sounds like I have a lot more affinity for the non-realist perspective.

 

[Sunstone]

I am certain that there are subtleties at work here which I am quite unware of, but from the OP it sures sounds like I have a lot more affinity for the non-realist perspective.

I'm curious! How so?

 

[Jollybear]

My simple two cents on this is thus:

Real science for instence asks why does this tree work the way it does? As in grow out of the ground, have leaves, its shape, ect?

Then, how can we make this tree work for us? Can we use it to make our life easyer?

Then if yes, then how do we do that? We certainly cannot cut it down with our hand. So, we need something sharp. Then we need to shape it into wood to make a hutt.

Now, in the case of God or no God, science does not ASSERT either one. It will do the same thing it does for the tree. It will ask why or how is the universe here? It wont make up an answer, it will seek to FIND the answer.

I believe God is real, atheists believe hes not. Theists tend to get accused of having a God of the gaps position. Thats odd to me because atheists do what i call a materialism of the gaps.

Science simply and SINCERELY asks why with a mind that is truely open to the REAL answer.

Those doing real science force themselves to have no biases.

 

[WalterTrull]

"Do the Sciences Tell Us What the World is Really Like?"
I'd like to comment on that. I might even read the long, long OP someday, but only since it's Sunstone.
Yes, the sciences tell us what it is like, just not what it is.

 

[bobhikes]

Do the sciences tell us what the world is really like?

The Sides to the Debate

Those who believe the sciences do tell us what the world is really like are called "realists". Those who don't, can be called "non-realists", but are most often called "anti-realists". However, I find the term "anti-realist" to be a bit misleading, so I'm sticking with "non-realist" here.

A person can combine the two positions by being a realist in some ways and a non-realist in other ways. And just to further confuse things, there are even more positions than merely those of realism and non-realism -- "constructive empiricism", for instance -- that we won't discuss here due to space limitations and to keep things simple.

Realism

Non-realism

Scientism


Questions? Comments?

What the world is like is really about perspective. The poor hungry resident in the improvised county has a far different reality then the educated financially secure countries resident. The resident of a war torn country has a much different reality yet. It doesn't matter what science discover's these realities will never go away and will always be different.

Science is best described as education into how things work. Science is not the creator but the explanation. Science is not the resolution but gives a path to resolution. Science is not reality but our current understanding of reality's construction.

We use science as well as all methods of enlightenment with our individuality to try and build a better solution for ourselves and that is how science should always be used.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for pointing that out.

I certainly gave that impression in my efforts to simplify things. I've edited the OP to make clearer that realism and non-realism are not a dichotomy, and that people do not fall neatly into one or the other category.



I seem to have also given you the impression that realism, etc have something to do with how to conduct science. They do not actually have much to do with that. They are more philosophical questions about whether or not scientific theories tell us what the world is really like. And yes, I realize that bores a whole lot of people -- not just scientists. But I'm not posting this stuff for those folks who are bored by it, am I?

Fair enough. I am not trying to suggest that either philosophical position says anything about how to do science, however. I'm trying to test what you have written against what I think is my own position - and that of other people with a science background.

I am fairly convinced that most scientists would have to think there is some kind of objective reality "out there" to model, or else there seems little point to the enterprise of modelling. So to that extent I suggest most would probably be realists.

However, the humility of recognising that all we build are models is something that seems to fit better into your non-realist category. Reading a little more about this, I may have been mistaken in how theoretical physicists think about this subject. This article on Instrumentalism: Instrumentalism - Wikipedia claims that theoretical physics has to a large extent given up on attempting to discern "reality": what can be called the "Shut up and calculate" school.

I do not think a biologist would think this way though. I do not see why a biologist would have much reason to doubt the reality of what he or she works with. Chemistry is somewhere in between, hence, perhaps, my adoption of what looks like a half-way house between the two extremes.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What both sides seem to show, as you've laid out here, is a thick stream of Pragmatism...

 

[Quintessence]

One of the things I was taught during my study of both the sciences and the philosophy thereof is that the sciences are descriptive, not prescriptive. That is to say, the sciences are never telling us what the world is "really like" and to suggest otherwise is hubris that undermines the discipline itself. The sciences only tell us what the world appears to be like under certain limitations. Some of these limitations are impossible to circumvent, such as limitations present due to humans being humans, or limitations imposed on scientific methods to preserve its nature as a system of inquiry. Some limitations shift over time as new tools are devised to make observations that were previously impossible (consider the impact of lenses that can magnify objects or see far into space). Recognizing these limits is important because those limits represent biases, and awareness of biases in a discipline that aims to be as objective and impartial as possible is critical.

I think this was drilled into me in part because the public perception of sciences has gone too far in the direction of cultivating scientism, or viewing the sciences as prescriptive dogma that has all the answers. Failure to recognize the limits and scope of your discipline makes a bad scientist as you'll be blind to your own biases and get stuck in rigid thinking that doesn't question assumptions. One of your jobs as a graduate student is practically to undermine your mentor's research by throwing wrenches into their unquestioned assumptions. You do undermine your own work too, actually. It is not uncommon for philosophy and prescriptive thinking to make their way into the picture across various sub-disciplines. It's vital to know where your objective inquiry (science) ends and your opinions (philosophy) begin.