An electron is a posit?

What is the ontological, metaphysical, and epistemic status of an electron? I don't know if that question makes sense or if even only a part of it makes sense, but if any of it makes sense, I'd like to know 1) what I'm asking and 2) the answer to what I'm asking.

It is a posit in the sense it is posited to explain what we observe. But that's all right. To quote Quine, "to posit is not to patronize". Electrons exist. And, "exist" is univocal. I think you are asking whether electrons "really"exist. Let me quell your anxiety. They do.

It is a posit in the sense it is posited to explain what we observe. But that's all right. To quote Quine, "to posit is not to patronize". Electrons exist. And, "exist" is univocal. I think you are asking whether electrons "really"exist. Let me quell your anxiety. They do.

They have properties, so of course they exist. For example, they have mass.

Sure, as a useful mental-model. :sarcastic:

They have properties, so of course they exist. For example, they have mass.

I agree in the usual sense of the word that they exist.

But as far as our experience of them goes, they are made out of words and numbers.

I agree in the usual sense of the word that they exist.

But as far as our experience of them goes, they are made out of words and numbers.

It is a posit in the sense it is posited to explain what we observe. But that's all right. To quote Quine, "to posit is not to patronize". Electrons exist. And, "exist" is univocal. I think you are asking whether electrons "really"exist. Let me quell your anxiety. They do.

And neutrinos , or dark matter ?
The question is they exist as what ? A pink elephant ?

And neutrinos , or dark matter ?
The question is they exist as what ? A pink elephant ?

What? Neutrinos exist in the same way that anything else that exists does. And the same will be said of dark matter if it is proven to exist.

What are you guys talking about? Why is it so hard to grasp that things can exist even though we may not be able to perceive them without instrumentation?

electrons are just "our" model for what exists. Just a simplistic way of explaining something. Our model(electrons) say nothing about the actual, but only help to explain how the actual behaves.

You've got to be kidding me. Of course electrons say something about the actual, otherwise scientists wouldn't be concerned with them! Or are scientists concerned with the imaginary?

You are aware that there are subatomic particles that exist called electrons, right? We have a model of them, but a model is not the thing it is a model of.

Is a chair a posit? I thought an electron is a posit whereas a chair isn't a posit.

I thought we posit that electrons exist to explain what we observe when we can't detect what's causing what we observe. We don't posit that batteries are in our flashlight to explain the light that shines from our flashlight since we do not need to rely on the light to determine that batteries are in our flashlight. We can open the flashlight up and see for ourselves.

We don't posit (or at least I didn't think we did) that chairs exist to explain why people don't fall when they sit, for we can directly observe (either visually or through instrumentation) that chairs exist.

I have this notion that there is something to be said about the things we call posits that cannot be said about things that are not posits, and that's what eludes me. Despite the fact we know posits exist, there seems to be more room for doubt than it is for things that are not posits.