Realism and Anti-Realism

The intensity of debate between the realists and antirealists shows no sign of abating. Here a new hypothesis is proposed to resolve the issue. The requirement of consistency and continuity are built-in in the methodology of this hypothesis. This new hypothesis supports realism.

The standpoint of realism has been widely used to argue in favour of, or against, particular physical theories. An analysis is made of the adequacy of such arguments, taking an argument by Einstein as a starting point.Some reflexions are given on relativism and invariance. Invariances can be seen as generators of both regularity and paradox in physics.

The notion of ‘phenomenotechnique’ which Gaston Bachelard introduced in the 1930’s has enjoyed popularity among historians of science who used it in order to insist upon the technical and social mediateness of scientific facts. In the wake of the current triumphal return to epistemological ‘realism,’ the idea of phenomenotechnique has been dismissed as an alleged relic of ‘constructivism.’ The article advocates for a different reading of ‘phenomenotechnique,’ which, rather than insisting on the fabrication of the scientific fact, highlights the intrinsic (...) connection of phenomenality and technicality. Phenomena are not simply given, they must be brought to visibility. While philosophies of technique have mostly stressed that technicity consists in overlooking the process (the ‘anesthesia’ of the medium), the paper argues for a conception of technicity that makes space for its productive, aestheticizing capacity. Finally, the article gestures towards parameters of what a ‘techno-aesthetics’ could look like. (shrink)

Analisando alguns aspectos das posições de dois filósofos cujas abordagens são reconhecidamente divergentes, W. O. Quine e M. Dummett, pretendemos sustentar um contundente ponto de acordo entre eles: a ideia de que nossos princípios lógicos constituem nossos princípios sobre o que há, e portanto, que lógica é metafísica. DOI: 10.5007/1808-1711.2011v15n1p3.

The thesis of this dissertation is that "the realism-idealism debate" is both a theoretical and a practical dispute. The practical dimension has been largely ignored because the deficiencies in the theoretical positions have gone unnoticed. As theoretical doctrines, realism and idealism are best interpreted as semantic theories specifying the conditions in virtue of which our statements are true and false. As semantic doctrines, however, both realism and idealism are false. Neither semantic theory is consistent with other philosophical positions to which (...) most contemporary philosophers are committed. Once it is acknowledged that most of the participants to the realism-idealism debate are not actually committed to either semantic realism or semantic idealism, the doctrines of "practical realism" and "practical idealism" can be given the attention they deserve. ;In Chapter One it is argued that the only acceptable candidate for a theoretical construal of realism is "semantic realism" as applied to the class of statements that express our ontological commitments. Chapter Two defends this claim against contemporary physicalist realists who argue that realism is strictly an "ontological" doctrine. Chapter Three investigates two famous arguments that are generally thought to be the strongest justification for the truth of semantic realism. It is shown that whether or not they are sound, they do not actually argue to the conclusion that semantic realism is true. Chapter Four presents what I refer to as "particularist" refutations of semantic realism and semantic idealism. Neither semantic realism nor semantic idealism is consistent with our "considered convictions" about the meaning of our utterances and thus should be rejected. Finally, Chapter Five offers a preliminary account of "practical realism" and "practical idealism" and thus a new model for the interpretation of many types of realism-idealism discourse. (shrink)

Thoroughgoing relativists typically dismiss the realist conviction that competing theories describe just one definite and mind-independent world-structure on the grounds that such theories fail to be relatively translatable even though they are equally correct. This line of argument allegedly brings relativism into direct conflict with the metaphysics of realism. I argue that this relativist line of reasoning is shaky by deriving a theorem about relativistic inquiry in formal epistemology—more specifically, in the approach Kevin Kelly has dubbed “logic of reliable inquiry”. (...) According to the theorem, two scientists, who share some background knowledge but follow different appropriately reliable methods, will converge to relatively formally translatable competing theories, even if meaning, truth, logic and evidence are allowed to vary in time depending on each scientist’s conjectures, actions, or conceptual choices. Some final remarks on the relevance of the theorem to the incommensurability thesis that has vexed twentieth century philosophy of science are adduced. (shrink)

A scholastic-Cartesian schema faithfully maps ordinary, effective ways of dealing with intentionality; yet its apparent incoherence provokes philosophers into opting for one of two stances, 'Cartesian' or 'direct realist', seemingly incompatible, yet each seem in accord with ordinary thought. A wide range of canonical and current theories, realist, idealist and hybrid, essentially involve one option or the other. We should instead consider why the language of intentionality, with its apparent anomalies, works so well. Released from the obligation to opt for (...) one stance over the other, we can identify a robust realism different in kind from anything currently on offer. (shrink)

Realists typically suppose that nonepistemic truth is an independent condition on propositional knowledge. Few philosophers, however, have seriously questioned the meta-epistemic consequences of combining alethic and epistemic variants of realism. In this paper I aim to show that the truth condition in the customary definition of knowledge presents an important problem for the realist at higher epistemic levels. According to my argument, traditional epistemic-logical analyses of metaknowledge fail because of their extensionalism and certain presuppositions they have about the satisfaction of (...) the truth condition. I further suggest that we need a different approach to metaknowledge if (1) we want to retain alethic realism, and (2) we want our epistemological accounts to adequately explicate the meta-epistemic states of actual, evidence-bound cognitive agents. (shrink)

I. Introduction 1.1 Realism about oneself and one’s circumstances has long been regarded as a hallmark of mental health and authentic happiness by philosophers and psychologists. It has also long invited skepticism from some quarters. Recently, this skepticism has found new support in the work of some social psychologists, who claim that far from being essential for mental health or happiness, realism can be bad for you. Certain positive illusions about yourself, they say, are more conducive to health and happiness (...) than a high degree of realism. I will argue that, properly understood, realism really is good for you. I will begin by showing the importance of realism in psychological, philosophical, and everyday thought about health and happiness. 1.2 Most psychologists and counselors regard healthy individuals as reality-oriented, as “able to take in matters” they wish were different, “without distorting them to fit these wishes.”[1] In a Socratic statement, Gordon Allport declares that “an impartial and objective attitude toward oneself is … a primary virtue, basic to the development of all others. … And so … if any trait of personality is intrinsically desirable, it is the disposition … to see oneself in perspective.”. (shrink)