philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, September 09, 2016, 13:22 (2996 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: An interesting discussion with a leading philosopher of science relating to our recent Higgs discussion: - http://nautil.us/issue/40/learning/-why-science-should-stay-clear-of-metaphysics - QUOTE: "In philosophical terms, “anti-realists” or “empiricists” understand science as investigating the properties of observable objects via experiments. Empirical theories are constrained by the experimental results. “Realists,” on the other hand, speculate more freely about the possible shape of the unobservable world, often designing mathematical explanations that cannot (yet) be tested. Isaac Newton was a realist, as are string theorists.” 
David's comment: Note the bold about the Higgs. I am an empiricist. I fully understand that a quark is known by its manifestations, not as a quark itself. Multiverse theory is philosophic foolishness. - First of all, I find the term “realist” totally misleading. There is nothing “realistic” about untestable theories. Why not contrast “empiricists” with “theorists”? Secondly, how can you possibly be an empiricist when you constantly attribute every aspect of the observable and unobservable world to a speculative and untestable hypothesis you call God? If “multiverse theory” is philosophic foolishness, then so is God - but I disagree with you on both counts. I would also add the hypothesis that there is one universe which has existed for ever, transforming energy and matter in a never-ending process. Pure speculation. Theory, not realism, and like the God and multiverse hypotheses, the exact opposite of empiricism. - As for the bold about the Higgs, it merely confirms what we have now agreed: Higgs completes one segment of a pattern, but we don't know the overall pattern.