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:
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:
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:
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?
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.
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.
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?
Last edited: