We have diverging views according to our conditioning and current needs. It is a well known statistical fact that 'belief in God' correlates with diagnosis of terminal illness.
My need is to come up with a theory or law that scientifically explains evolution by our best scientific interpretation of all of the data. I thought that was your need.
S far as the words 'reality' and 'existence' are concerned, you yet understand the nonrepresentationalist point that the meaning of words is relative to the social contexts in which they occur and NOT to any independent ontological 'things'. In an earlier post you seemed to understand that particles like 'electrons' insofar as they were useful constructs for directing the observations of scientists. As Rovelli puts it, 'there are only 'interaction/observation events from which we infer the nature of
I understand the nonrepresentationalist point of view. To a nonrepresentationalist an electron is not defined by what it physically is; it is defined by what we percieve it to be at the moment, and that perception becomes a definition for the electron from scientific consensus of how the words or math best fit our needs that day as a scientific community.
A realist does not look to consesus, but looks at patterns and statistical anlysis. It appears to me, and I think a lot of scientists agree from statistical analysis of electrons in many atoms, that all electrons in the universe are the same, as well as all the hydrogen atoms, and each individual isotope of every atom in the universe. Analysis tells scientists that for the universe to operate as we observe, those atoms are interacting the same way following certain rules everywhere, even when they are not being observed.
1. Do you think the atoms, electrons, and rules do not exist if we are not observing them?
Now obviously this applies at the quantum level, but in 'normal life' what we call 'properties of things' could be expressed as our human expectancies of observation/ interaction events.
Neopragmatism takes into account the societal needs and biases of the participants trying to reach consensus. If all the participants see no need for ID, because they are at peace with their mortality, does that mean it will not be considered as a possibility. If so, I think this question needs to be answered with near certainty, and without end of life biases.
"(We could all turn into worm food with no heaven or hell, nor any morality be written into DNA and ID could still be a contributor to the mechanism).
2. Are end of life needs and biases irrelevant?
The difference between the two levels is merely statistical with respect to confidence levels. Pragmatism is about our confidence 'what works', and neopragmatism takes into account that words set up up different expectancies in different contexts.
3. If the answer to question 2 is yes, should the different expectancies of the neopragmatist even be considered and the statistical analysis of the pragmatist be the only considerarion?
I think that is Spitzer's reasoning for selecting arguments for his proofs.
It is the abstract permanence of a word that a naive realist equates with 'permanence of things'.
BTW, your concern with 'labels' ( pragmatist etc) is a de facto demonstration of your tendency to such 'realism'.
An atom appears to be fairly permanent in most cases. Atoms store information, that is how we tell the difference between the different types of atoms. Something that stores information is a by definition a word, and atoms appear most scientist to be fairly permanent words. I think that is a defacto demonstration of realism.
I am not forcing my beliefs on you. I just want science to have an open mind when interpreting the data. Lack of consideration of ID is a defacto demonstration of athesistic forcing beliefs on the rest of society when you are a scientist or philosopher developing curriculam and directing moneys at an institution of higher learning