[Critical-Realism] Muons, scientific realism, Hume

["Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

There are some standard philosophy of science terms that might be helpful here.

Scientific realism is the view that the objects referred to within scientific theories are real.  The alternate view, sometimes called "instrumentalism," is that the objects are not real (or that who cares or who knows), that they are "posits" - ideas that make the theories work.  Serious people hold both views.

I'm pretty sure that one could be a Humean and be either, though often scientific realists break with Hume's ontology on other grounds.  One can be a scientific realist without being a scientific essentialist or a dispositional essentialist.

Similarly, fallibilism - the view that even our best thoeries might be wrong - is consistent with both scientific realism and with instrumentalism; it doesn't commit one to either, nor the reverse. 

r.



-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Tobin Nellhaus
Sent: Sun 17-Jun-07 2:43 PM
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] transitive/intransitive, cr and philosophy,etc.
 
Dave--

Why are muons necessarily a theoretical construct of a Humean science? 
Insofar as they are scientific entities, they are understood as 
ontologically real.  (As RB argues in RTS, which we are discussing anyway, 
the actual practice of science presupposes realism.)  This has nothing at 
all to do with whether or not muons actually exist, in the sense that all 
theories are potentially fallible.  In any case, muons were "predicted" 
(more accurately, posited as real) by a particular theory, and scientific 
experimentation produced the evidence to demonstrate to competent scientists 
that they are indeed real.  While in principle one can object to the theory 
on philosophical grounds (e.g., there are realist challenges to the canonic 
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics), the evidence to support the 
existence of muons wouldn't disappear if the theory collapsed.  Of course 
one might subsequently account for the evidence as evidence of something 
else.

In any case one needn't maintain that muons' existence is "indubitable" to 
use them for the purpose that I did, which was to distinguish "transitive" 
from "transitory."  *Any* fleeting entity would have done, so if you don't 
like muons, replace them with something similarly brief that you *do* like, 
such as (just guessing here) the time span during which an electronic 
pathway holds a charge.  Do such charges exist during that nanosecond?  If 
so, then they are intransitive, even though they are transitory.  You 
shouldn't let your allergies blind you to the point of the discussion.

Don't worry, I'm not treating you as one of my disagreeable students.  I 
don't *have* students.  Relatively speaking, I'm an independent scholar. 
You do behave disagreeably, but peers as well as students can do that.  One 
way you act disagreeably is by being presumptuous and arrogant; another is 
by reading badly; another is by describing others as idiots and infants. 
Change those behaviors, and my reactions will change.

T.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'" 
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] transitive/intransitive, cr and 
philosophy,etc.


> Tobin
>
> Not to push this, but to try and answer you:-
>
> (a) you used "muons" as an example in rejecting my earlier point, and
> (leaving aside babbling, which is what infants do when they are still in 
> the
> process of mastering language), you therefore did what I said: talked 
> about
> a theoretical construct of a Humean science (apparently without realising
> that is what it was, and apparently without realising I am your peer and 
> not
> one of your more disagreeable students).
>
> (b) I agree your messages are pretty terse, but so are mine if possible 
> (as
> below).  If I keep going on about topics like Algol68, it is because 
> no-one
> has indicated they have tried at all to understand the relevance and
> significance of what I have been explaining, let alone grasped it.  I 
> don't
> resent this, because I realise how difficult it is to grasp the 
> significance
> of what one is unfamiliar with.  I keep trying to explain apparently
> unfamiliar topics from different angles in different contexts because I
> personally do understand enough to realise their significance.  Once I 
> have
> found a way of communicating it there will be no occasion for me to 
> "babble
> on".
>
> Respectfully
>
> Dave T
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tobin
> Nellhaus
> Sent: 16 June 2007 23:50
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] transitive/intransitive, cr and
> philosophy,etc.
>
> Dave T.:
>
>>             Tobin babbling on about a theoretical construct of a
>> Humean science as if it were an indubitably existing material entity
>> and not just a way of speaking about an energy transfer,
>
> Say what?  When the heck did I talk about theoretical constructs *or* 
> Hume,
> or anything even close?  The only things I've discussed during recent
> exchanges have been (1) alternative transcendental arguments for realism 
> (or
> ontology), which is decidedly within the purview of CR, not Hume, and (2)
> briefly, the misunderstand of the word "transitive."  If you have an
> argument against either of those points, make it.  Otherwise, bug out.
>
> As for babbling, I'd say my messages have been pretty terse, whereas you
> have a lot to answer for, with your ceaseless talk about Algol etc.  I'd
> call those arguments Taylorist.
>
> T.
>
> ---
> Tobin Nellhaus
> nellhaus@xxxxxxxx
> "Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism 


_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism

_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism