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

by David Turell , Saturday, September 10, 2016, 16:56 (2778 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, September 10, 2016, 17:06


> dhw: And I am simply saying why I find the famous philosopher's use of “realist” misleading.-All fields have their jargon.
> 
> Dhw: [iTheory, not realism, and like the God and multiverse hypotheses, the exact opposite of empiricism.[/i]
> 
> For some reason, you have ignored this completely and saltated to an article about particles.-I leap-frogged to thinking about his comments on quantum theory. He is right on. And his comments about empiricism/realism are very pertinent considering how little we understand about the underpinning of quantum theory.-From the article: "Empirical theories are constrained by the experimental results. “Realists,” on the other hand, speculate more freely about the possible shape of the unobservable world"
I think of myself as using experimental results to reach my conclusions, metaphysical as they might be.
> 
> Dhw: 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.
> 
> DAVID: I'm glad you finally recognize it.
> 
> dhw: That's strange.....“Why all this vehement opposition to statements of mine which you then proceed to echo?” But I'm glad to finally recognize that you have finally recognized that your disagreement was in fact an agreement.-You started the discussion with a response to my viewing the SM as a pattern which suggested a mind behind it by trying to point out all the supposed deficiencies, all of which are/were outside the accepted pattern.