From what school of thought do you hail?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

What label would you use for your philosophy of science? Realist? Empiricist? Instrumentalist? Positivist?

I've been reading through some papers on scientific realism. It's very interesting, because I used to be firmly in the realist camp. Since that world came crashing down on me, I've wandered from place to place, and have not yet settled under any banner.

As I look back on my training as an engineer, I would say I was indoctrinated with a qualified version of realism. That is where it started, but I went beyond that in my personal position (for a time).

Though I would no longer call myself a realist, some elements of that system hang on in my approach.

I'd be curious to know if others have struggled with this, and if they've landed somewhere.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 929 • Replies: 6

No top replies

@Resha Caner,

I would say I'm an empiricist, because I think that the meaning of science is natural explanations for natural phenomena. Note that what is natural may not necessarily be real.

1 Reply

@hammersklavier,

Please clarify what you mean by "natural" then. I see "natural" and "real" as somewhat synonomous. I tend to think of empiricists as "curve fitters". In other words, an empiricist would say: I use the wave equation because the math matches the phenomena, not because I think "waves" are real - it's just the name given to the equation.

Would you say then, that you mean "phenomenological" rather than "natural"?

0 Replies

@Resha Caner,

I think what I'm trying to say is that I subscribe to the idea that science uncovers series of cause and effect--like sandstone being a bunch of sand grains cemented together 100 million years ago rather than God creating a distinct type of rough stone good for building or that Man is here because some time in the past he started using his brain more and discovered it helped him survive and multiply. My idea of empiricism is that it describes what is inherently cuasally provable.

2 Replies

@hammersklavier,

Honest question: Is it a sham to be a dualist and existentialist?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Honest question: Is it a sham to be a dualist and existentialist?

What kind of dualist do you mean? Since my question related to science, should I assume you mean some sort of "property" dualism (mind vs. matter) or a "substance" dualism, i.e., that both the physical and the non-physical exist? I'm guessing here, so you'll have to help me.

Based on what you mean, the two might fit together quite well. But how, then, does that proceed to a philosophy of science?

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

I think what I'm trying to say is that I subscribe to the idea that science uncovers series of cause and effect--like sandstone being a bunch of sand grains cemented together 100 million years ago rather than God creating a distinct type of rough stone good for building or that Man is here because some time in the past he started using his brain more and discovered it helped him survive and multiply. My idea of empiricism is that it describes what is inherently cuasally provable.

Are you with Hume, then? The idea that we cannot inductively reason our way to a theory. That we search for uniformity in the world, and once we find it, we assume such uniformity will continue into the future?

Let me play devil's advocate. The most compelling realist argument is that if a theory is true, it will make accurate predictions. That is a tautology. So, if some theory makes accurate predictions, it is reasonable to assume it is true - that it is real. This does not guarantee it is true, but to assume otherwise is to think that chance or miracles are at work.

0 Replies

From what school of thought do you hail?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know