In your discussion this week, you debated scientific realism and antirealism. In a two- to threepage journal, summarize the results of this discussion. What were the strengths and weaknesses of scientific realism that emerged from the debate? What were the strengths and weaknesses of antirealism? Which side did the majority of the class seem to support? Did you agree with the majority? Why or why not? Did you change your mind about anything as a result of the discussion? Below is this week’s class work. Week 2: Philosophy of Science: Debating Scientific Realism Be sure to have read the complete directions seen above. Scientific Realism vs. Anti-Realism This week we will again debate a controversial issue together in class. Our question is this: Is scientific realism an adequate way to think about science or does some form of antirealism make more sense? In other words, does science help us get in touch with the truth about reality or does science have some other function? We have read at least two overviews of this controversy, and now it is our turn to weigh the reasoning on each side by answering: 1. For the Realist position: a. What are the strengths of the Realist position? Why do you say so? b. What are the weaknesses of the Realist position? What makes you think this? 2. For the Anti-Realist position: a. What are the strengths of the Antirealist position? What makes you say so? b. What are the weaknesses of the Antirealist position? Why do you think this? 3. Which side seems best, all things considered, and why do you say so? Responses We will debate the alternatives together: 1. If the first post supports one side of the debate, then 2. the second post should either a. add further reasons on that side or b. critique the reasoning the first post gave 3. Then the third post should build on what the first two said. Remember that we are looking for the best answer. 4. If most students agree, then take up the opposite side for the sake of argument. May 13, 2018 May 13 at 1:19pm • $ Pro Tip Debating (Giving Peer Feedback) From the Ashford Writing Center at http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/giving-peerfeedback (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. In your class discussion boards, you will be expected to provide feedback to your peers and engage in conversations and debates. Giving feedback to peers can feel a bit overwhelming, but constructive criticism and respectful conversations with peers can support the learning process. Below are some strategies and tips to help you to give useful and appropriate feedback. Be Respectful In all of your interactions with peers be sure to use a respectful and academic tone in your response, even when you disagree with their points. This means you want to use appropriate language, and avoid things like all caps in your responses. Use Evidence Focus on the topic and building your argument with evidence. Do not focus on the individual. Do not say “You’re wrong.” Instead, build your side of the argument by pulling in scholarly sources and statistics to back up your points. Remember that a debate is always won when strong evidence is used, not with personal attacks or name calling. Examples No Evidence I think you’re completely wrong to choose this approach to the case. I think that it would be better for the teacher to just call the parents about this issue, rather than making a report to a local agency. With Evidence I have to respectfully disagree with your approach to this case. As outlined by Smith (2010), chatting with the parents about this issue, rather than making a report, could increase the risk of harm for the child. • Objective vs. Subjective Reality Objective reality refers to the world that exists outside your mind in the physical world. Subjective reality refers to the reality inside your mind, constructed of the meaning you have given things. Imagination vs. Experiences • Thursday May 17 at 11:49am Is scientific realism an adequate way to think about science or does some form of antirealism make more sense? After reading the text I believe scientific realism is an adequate way to think about science. The textbook stated that scientific realism occurs when “science aims at true statements about what there is in the world and how it behaves, at all levels, not just at the level of observation,” (Chalmers, 2013, pg 219). The world is forever changing and scientific realism describes how even though we see things one-way that may be different in the future. Theories are often created as a result of scientific experiments and such, a theory however is not concrete. “We cannot know that our current theories are true, but they are truer than earlier theories, and will retain at least approximate truth when they are replaced by something more accurate in the future,” (Chalmers, 2013, pg 219). These types of claims are being made and can be tested alongside claims from previous scientific claims, showing us how we are forever evolving. This is turn can also be its biggest problem. The fact that the claims made in a theory could be false in later years when it is worked on again, meaning science is “revisable”. Although a realist wouldn’t say that, they would call science “progressive” and applaud its abilities to grow! Hello Everybody! As Patricia has stated, I believe as well that scientific realism helps the way we think about science. I see it as a positive way to see the observations of the world. It defines the truth in the facts given as our references. Even though, the concept anti realism makes us see the facts given in science a different way. It is the complete opposite of realism, it is known for a facts that some theories given is science are not true/ incorrect. The anti realism believe that the theories are great way to help many cases, but unfortunately are proved wrong. Patricia, has given us a great quote from the readings of this week to have a better understanding of both concepts, we will never know if the theories are true but they are truer than the ones stated before. Therefore, it seems that the concept realism gives us hope in having something to look forward to and believe in to. And if it's now true, or somewhat incorrect, it will help us find a way to study and look for what is right and truthful in the world. Both concepts are adequate to be used in the term science. But anti realism, see as if nothing were true at all because of often being incorrect but it basically states that there is nothing to believe in, do you guys think this way as well? I mean this is the way I see it. At lest the concept realism gives us hope in finding what is true and if it's not, we look (the scientist) for the true answer. Our times/ society is in constant change, the research and the study is what makes the theories believable. There are theories given that are true with no doubt, and even if the anti realism concept helps science, does believing in it makes not believing at all? (Because of being of realism being incorrect) Look forward in hearing you guys opinion, great weekend! Hi I think you brought up a really great point when you asked, "even if anti realism concept helps science, does believing in it mean not believing at all?" I had to really think about this question. After much thought I feel that anti-realist can still believe in science it's just a very structured version of whatever concept they are following. Much of what I heard stated how anti-realism is when the ideas are based off of one theory however that theory is final. There is no chance for a revamp of information or add ons of new information pertaining the the theory. Yesterday May 20 at 3:11pm Hey Patricia I agree with you. Scientific realism helps us understand science much better. Time is definitely changing science and technology. Today’s science is so much more advanced compare to many centuries ago. I feel that scientist in today’s generation are much more knowledgeable when it come to the material. They have much more labs, materials, and equipment’s to help improve science. For instance, medications and robotic equipment that perform surgeries are perfect examples of how science has developed throughout the years. I completely agree with you. The advances we have in health and medicine today are remarkable and all thanks to science. It's amazing the things that can be discovered when you have the means and determination to do so. I could not even image what the world would be like today without the technology we use on a daily basis. I can barley remember what life was like before all of it and I don't believe dial up internet came out until I was in middle school. I find it even more interesting how dependent we are on all these advancements. It really makes you think how did people survive without all of it? ▪ Hello You both bring up great points on the advancement and current knowledge of science and its effects on thing like healthcare and medicine. Being in the medical field I get to see some of these advancements in both medication and different skill sets such as placing a tube to help someone breath or CPR to make their blood move through the body. It is crazy to think that not that long ago the answer to most medical issues where to just drain out some blood. I do think it is safe to say that most of us here are in agreeance that scientific realism helps us understand science much better. Patricia had a really good quote from this weeks reading that seem to sum up this statement. With this that science works to make true statements on how things are and “not just at the level of observation” (Chalmers, 2013). Great posts to all, I have really enjoyed what reading everyone’s thoughts on this weeks question. Chalmers, A. (2013). What is this thing called science? (4th ed.). St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Retrieved from http://proquest.libguides.com/ebrary Thursday May 17 at 2:51pm 1) A. The realist position has several strengths namely; • • • Epistemic proofs and achievements. Scientific realists can investigate both observable and unobservable world aspects using theories that have a high degree of accuracy. The theoretical models can change and accommodate the changing nature of the elements of the world. Scientific realists use instruments to account for the unobservable aspects that exist in the world, and it finds them to be real though observable methods using naked eyes. Epistemic aims is another strength of scientific realists. The scientific theories and models aim at approximately providing descriptions of what exists in the world. The descriptions of things provided are almost exact. Scientific inquiry enables realists to explain the unobservable aspects of things living in the world concerning what is observable. Realists commitment to what they believe is another strength. Realists take into account for both observable and unobservable since they are related. They commit to what has approximately been described as the best by the scientific theories and models. I say so because anyone can use these theories and prove the realists' arguments and either commit to them or refute. Investigation gives substantial results to make decisions depending on their interpretation. 1. Scientific realism has two major weaknesses that I can note, and that is the “approximate truth notion” and the “best of the scientific theories” idea. Realists believe that the results they get after an intensive investigation is an approximate truth given by the best theories and this provides an opportunity for anti-realists to counter their arguments actively. Some of the cases may not match the results obtained though they are correct. 2) A. The anti-realist position has the following strengths; • • • Social constructivism. Over time there has been complex interactions and scientific practices emerging that has infused new scientific knowledge in generations. This change is deemed to change the historical explanations of scientific facts and proofs. There has been a lot of scientific revolutions that have contributed to change of scientific knowledge and aspect perceptions hence descriptions are changing on a daily basis which is true. Empiricism provides many ways to counter the realist commitments to the scientific knowledge. The arguments made by the anti-realists are close to the scientific realism arguments, and they base their arguments where realism seems to fail or is weak. This makes me conclude on the strengths described above. 1. i. Lack of support. Many people and scientists do not support anti-realism. 2. Lack of proofs for their claims against realism. 3. Scientific realism seems to be the best because it accounts for both the observable and the unobservable aspects of the world. It has more theories to prove its claims as compared to anti-realism. It helps us get in touch with the truth in more concrete ways. Reference: University, S. (2017, June 12). Scientific Realism. Retrieved from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/ Saturday May 19 at 12:01am Hi Betsy, Oh boy, but does this topic produce many questions! When it comes to the "observable and unobservable," I am interested in your statement that the two are related. In what way, exactly? What is an "unobservable" in the first place, and why is it even considered here? Personally, I am not in favor of the theory of social construct because there are simply too many variables to consider anything as solid data or a conclusion. So, when you say that "over time there has been complex interactions and scientific practices emerging that has infused new scientific knowledge in generations. This change is deemed to change the historical explanations of scientific facts and proofs," what do you mean, specifically? Do you have an example to illustrate what you're saying? Our main questions this week considered: Is scientific realism an adequate way to think about science or does some form of antirealism make more sense? In other words, does science help us get in touch with the truth about reality or does science have some other function? How would you answer this? Professor Professor, This topic has been a very interesting one to look at and I have been trying to gain a better grasp in both positions. One thing that I am seeming to understand more is that scientific realism is the idea that reality exists separate from the mind, where the theories we create are then seen as the description of reality. With this being said we then state that something is seen as true. I personal believe that science does help us get in touch with what “reality” is. Saturday May 19 at 6:46pm Hi Betsey, Great post! You gave so much information and brought forth many great questions. I really agreed with you when you said "Investigation gives substantial results to make decisions depending on their interpretation." I feel that this is extremely true in terms of science because it is always changing. An experiment that was done years ago could have completely different results if done the same way today. Or you could simply get more information in favor of the pervious results. Science really is an amazing thing. Would I be correct in saying that you would answer this weeks discussion question with scientific realism being the more adequate way to think about science? Yesterday May 20 at 5:20pm Hey Betsy, You did an amazing job on your post! You actually helped me understand this week assignment a little better. You have provided a lot of great information. I agree when you say, "scientific realism seems to be the best because it accounts for both the observable and the unobservable aspects of the world." Scientists in our generation and future generations will need to use observation in order to collect and record data. Doing this will help the scientists create and test their hypotheses and theories. After reading about realism and anti-realism my best choice would have to be realism. 10:58am May 21 at 10:58am Hi Betsy, Wonderful initial post, I enjoyed reading it. I'm not sure if you read my initial post for the week 1 discussion or for the post your intro discussion, but I hate science! I have disliked it since grade school and nothing has changed.I had to read over your initial post two or three times but I was able to get a better understanding of scientific realism as well as anti-realism. Thank you! You seem to have answered some of the assigned questions, but I would like to know your stance on what science actually does for us..Do you think it helps us get in touch with the truth about reality? Let me know your thoughts, I'd love to hear from you. Thursday May 17 at 5:43pm This post is kind of ironic due to the timing of a current social media crisis about yanny or laurel. You probably are wondering why I bring this up, what does it have to do with science? But, in truth, it has everything to do with science. Just like the dress debate in 2015, was the dress white/gold or blue/black? The phenomenon of the dress, like many illusions suggested that the human visual system can be tricked into misinterpreting the reality. The same thing goes for the yanny and laurel debate, your auditory system can also be misinterpreted. So then, do we ever really see true reality or is it all perception? Scientific realism and antirealism dictate how we see the world based off of the science that is applied to it. The basis of realism is to accept non-observable phenomenon’s that actually exist (black holes, theory says they exist, but no one has ever seen one). The idea that science should be assumed as roughly true, makes the line between theory and research kind of blurry to me. I think that theory should never be regarded as true. I guess that makes me an anti realist. I think that many scientific theories that we know today will be proven incorrect, and have to be redefined or rejected. At the time that theories come out, they seem super logical and to make complete sense, and then more knowledge and information come out due to the leaps and bounds we make yearly with technology and research, and those theories no longer seem applicable. Think about Darwin and natural selection or Einstein’s relativity theories, both have had to adapt and be modified over time. I think that scientists and science use empirical data to move along with their theories to avoid having to try to tackle the antirealism v. realism debate on their theories. They take small hypothesis and test them, in order to try to generate a large theory (which avoids the realist debate). Science allows for minute shifts in thought so that philosophers can come in and decide the details about the actual nature of reality, in my opinion. Just for fun, what do you hear? yanny or laurel? https://www.syracuse.com/expo/erry2018/05/7e07bf758b282/yanny_or_laurel_audio_debate.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. how about this one? Green needle or brainstorm? You can sit there and listen to both and try to trick your brain to hear both, it may take some time... But both are there, if you allow your brain to work around the illusions. • Friday May 18 at 8:38am Hello Great analogy! You're right, there is a current debate about that topic and I don't know what to think. I heard the clip over the radio Wednesday morning and I heard 'Laurel'. Then when I was watching The Real on daytime TV, they played the SAME clip but this time I heard 'Yanny'. At first, I thought they were two different clips, but then did a little research and realized they were the same clips... my mind was blown. Listening to your attached link, I heard 'Laurel' and with your second clip, I heard 'Brainstorm'. I never thought of the dress debate or the clip debate having anything to do with science, good philosophy Alexis. What color dress did you see? What name did you hear? I agree with your standpoint pertaining to scientific realism. In the required text, Chalmers (2013), stated that scientific realism “aims at true statements about what there is in the world” (page 218). What are some other strengths and weaknesses of the anti-realism and realism positions?. • Friday May 18 at 3:04pm • • o Hello Not going to lie and I guess shows that I am not on the top of my game in the social media world, but I have not heard of this yanny or laurel “crisis” until I looked it up after reading your post. You do bring up a very interesting point though on the fact that everyone has a different sense of perception whether it be what we hear, see, taste. What I find interesting from the reading is that for antirealism the text states “its defenders observe that we have no way of coming face to face with reality to read off facts about it, by way of perception or in any other way. We can view the world only from our humanly generated perspectives and describe it in the language of our theories” (Chlamers, 2013). With this being stated I fell that everyone will look at something differently. As I do agree with scientific realism which is getting the true statements, doesn’t it also seem that there is also room for anti-realism? This being along the argument that what I might see and hear is going to be different from what you or someone else sees and hears? To answer Sheyla’s questions some of the strengths of anti-realism is it allows the theoretical invention to free of having to be compatible of all other theories. Such example would be seen in quantum mechanics which provides some of the most basic understanding of the structure of matter, but in turn requires abandoning realism (Folse, n.d.) Thursday May 17 at 6:19pm • Week 2 Discussion Debating Scientific Realism What are the strengths of the Realist position? Why do you say so? The realist position deals with a lot of theories in my opinion; logical commitment and epistemic successes (just a few). I also think scientific realism can assist us in thinking scientifically and according to Chalmers (2013), scientific realism “aims at true statements about what there is in the world” (page 218). After reviewing the assigned texts, I have come to believe that each of the mentioned theories can be utilized to verify or disprove the realists’ debates. First, there have been validations or epistemic evidence dealing with scientific realism which can be viewed as a strength. They can examine imperceptible as well as perceptible features on planet Earth utilizing abnormal precision concepts. Logical realists are known for using certain tools to justify the imperceptible things we have in our world today and it’s these tools that have been successful. Second, would be the commitment that the realists have pertaining to their beliefs and what they wish to prove. These types of scientists pay close attention to perceptible and imperceptible reasoning's and dedicate their findings and/or studies to theories. Finally, the degree of knowledge or an epistemic objective is an additional strength. The intention of scientific models is to deliver images, accounts, explanations, depictions, etc. of the occurrences on Earth and why these things happen. These depictions are extremely accurate and can explain the unexplained features on our planet. What are the weaknesses of the Realist position? What makes you think this? After reviewing the required texts, I came to realize that the scientific realism position has one or two weaknesses. These realists think the outcomes received once an experiment, examination, study, research, etc. is commenced, it then provides a sense of truth which can then give a chance for others to contradict the findings. What are the strengths of the Antirealist position? What makes you say so? I have come to learn that anti-realism has two strengths; empiricism and constructivism (could possibly be more). The stimulation performed by the increase of investigatory science or empiricism, allows the scientists to go against realist’s commitments. While social constructivism or a sociological concept (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. of information (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. has strengthened over the years since the 17th century. Since then, technology has blossomed and has swayed other scientists to continue the searches and discoveries of the unknown. What are the weaknesses of the Antirealist position? Why do you think this? Surprisingly, I have learned that the antirealism quarrels mirror the realism quarrels in a way and that is a huge weakness. I think this because I believe antirealism doesn’t contain enough evidence against its counterpart and it isn’t sustained as much as realism. Reply Reply to Comment • Thursday May 17 at 8:47pm What are the strengths and weaknesses of the realist position? According to our reading, the realist position “reflects the unthinking attitude of most scientists and non-scientists” (Chalmers, 2013, pg 210). Realists believe that scientific theories are true to the world whether they are observable or not. Realist views scientific inquiry discovery and not an invention. Realist uses facts and past events to proof an event. Realist seeks an explanation to prove a discovery. The weakness of realist is that the “truth” of the non-observant theory can be proven as “false.” What are the strengths and weakness of the anti-realist position? The anti-realist position “stresses the inconclusiveness of the evidence for the theoretical part of science” (Chalmers, 2013, pg 210). Anti-realist believes that scientific theories do not explain anything. Instead, they consider them predictors. Anti-realist feels that they do not need to show or proof an explanation to the truth of reality. The weakness of anti-realist is that they refused to accept a “true fact” without an actual observation, even if it’s shown that it’s a successful theory. This is an example of how I can distinguish realist vs anti-realist. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I believe that realism is based on facts that have been determined, studied, and seen. Such as, if I were to plant a tree in soil it will grow. This is realism it has been proven, seen, and determined to be true. The effects of how it grows will vary on the condition of the soil and area but there will be a result. Anti-realism would be me taking that tree and planting it on concrete or water and expecting it to have the same effects as in soil. I think that the strength of realism would be by being realistic you could have a sense of expectation. The weakness depends on the expectation. I might be misunderstanding realism and anti-realism in science versus the traditional way. It seems as if it’s the opposite. Please help me understand if I’m right or wrong. Chalmers, A. (2013). What is this thing called science? (4th ed.). St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Retrieved from http://proquest.libguides.com/ebrary Reply Reply to Comment • 12:17am May 21 at 12:17am I am interested in your first statements here. What does Chalmers mean, exactly, when he says "unthinking attitude"? Does that suggest that Realist simply accept what they consider to be fact? You also say that the "realist views scientific inquiry discovery and not an invention"--does this mean that new innovations or inventions are not science, and that only discoveries are science? If so, that would be quite problematic in those fields--Based on your classmate's responses, how would you clarify the meaning of this statement, or whether or not you agree with it and why? I'm not sure that I am with you here on the realism and anti-realism definitions. The anti-realist wouldn't be expecting the same tree to grow in a different environment. Philosophy is about the philosophical argument, or debate, and that debate is over philosophical statements (arguments). These arguments are presented in a formula called a syllogism, where there are premises that lead to a conclusion. For example, and I'm sure that you've seen this before: Premise 1: Socrates is a man Premise 2: All men are mortal Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (If A = B, and if B = C, then A = C). (A and B are Premise 1 and 2). The Realist believes that you can accept an argument that involves the existence of the "theoretical entities," or unobservables, even though these entities cannot be observed (Folse, n.d.). This type of argument is accepted because Realists are trying to find the truth about things in the world based on the correspondence (an agreement or correlation) between what is believed and what is actual. Anti-Realists believe in statements that cohere (bind) to other statements (or beliefs) and that external reality is only hypothetical. (It's all subjective perspective, right?) The Anti-Realist would not even consider that tree because it doesn't truly exist--only that which can be seen, touched, etc. (observables), can be verified--and that is what is science. And so our main question this Week involves seeking the truth about reality: Is scientific realism an adequate way to think about science or does some form of antirealism make more sense? In other words, does science help us get in touch with the truth about reality or does science have some other function? • Collapse Subdiscussion 11:11am May 21 at 11:11am I really enjoyed reading your posts, so far, I always do. I see you mentioned Chalmers (2013) statement, "unthinking attitude of most scientists and non-scientists” (Chalmers, 2013, pg 210) when relating to scientific realism. I have to admit, I didn't understand what he meant by that phrase. To me, I concluded that the term 'unthinking attitude' simply meant “experience proven” or to proceed without correct consideration of the end result.. What are your thoughts?
Purchase answer to see full attachment