Thanks for the explanations. I am taking a Philosophy of Science course and have a paper to write on scientific realism, but find the subject really theoretical and dry, so you helped me understand it in a more practical way.
+SisyphusRedeemed you're very welcome, the fact you have a college student interested enough to watch your lectures in his free time says something lol who knows maybe I'll end up there for grad school and take some classes with you.
Do you view Critical Realism (Bhaskarian) as a branch of Scientic Realism? Or is it a foundamental diffenrent position/paradigme do to the epistemic relativism CR claim. Maybe you can make a video about CR and maybe the diffenrence between CR and SR.
Our world doesn't change when our paradigm changes. I have to disagree with Kuhn on that, if that is what he actually asserted. Rather, our understanding of the world changes. The world, independent of our mind, has remained the same.
i think what thomas kuhn is saying is because he is an instrumentalist this means that he is agnostic about the stuff we can t see, so when we observe them they will make things more clear and thus will change our perspective and understanding of the world
I think I have to take objection with your very first question. Science doesn't "describe" anything. Science is not a language or a description. It's a process. It's a method. You either "do science" or you "do NOT do science." So I think a better phrasing of your question would be "what is science trying to accomplish?" Or perhaps, "what is the point of doing science?" The answer to that question might then be something like "science is a process for evaluating synthetic propositions." Or perhaps, "science is a process for finding propositions that accurately model reality"---that sort of thing. But just be careful with the way you phrase your questions. Simply phrasing them poorly can lead one down all sorts of nasty dead-end rabbit holes.
Science is a process, but scientific facts that are established from that process do (or are intended to) describe reality. Though, we may still be partly on the same page. I would agree with your statement here: " 'Or perhaps, "science is a process for finding propositions that accurately model reality'---that sort of thing. "
You claim that the positivist approach of reducing statements about the theoretical entity of radio waves to the behaviour of a physical radio receiver is problematic because "radio receiver" is a functional definition meaning anything that can receive radio waves. I think this objection is spurious; surely you can pick a specific "recipe" for building a standard reference type of radio receiver, and reduce your statements about radio waves to the behaviour of a radio receiver built according to that recipe. You can then show empirically that other methods of receiving radio waves produce the same results and define a radio receiver as anything that behaves similarly to the reference radio receiver, giving a sound basis to the functional definition of a radio receiver that way. Up to the limits of your empirical measurements, I think it doesn't matter which type of radio receiver you use as the reference model.
He has problem with radios? Language is always ambiguous. philosophy spends too mu h time with bickering over linguistic ambiguities as if there is something profound about it. Science adopts language/concepts adequate to make predictions.
Thanks for the explanations. I am taking a Philosophy of Science course and have a paper to write on scientific realism, but find the subject really theoretical and dry, so you helped me understand it in a more practical way.
Soft realism, hard realism, little world of fur, happy realism, sleepy realism, purr, purr, purr.
These lectures are so well put together, I'd take your class if I went to whatever college you teach at. (I forget at the moment)
Thanks for saying so. (I'm actually about to leave the University of Southern Indiana to start a new position at Sacramento State.)
+SisyphusRedeemed you're very welcome, the fact you have a college student interested enough to watch your lectures in his free time says something lol who knows maybe I'll end up there for grad school and take some classes with you.
Your lectures are awesome!
Thank you for saying so.
I think you would be surprised about how much controversy there is in some cases regarding if a certain growth should be classified as a tumor or not.
I know this is old, but could you refer to some reading on that kind of ambiguity?
Do you view Critical Realism (Bhaskarian) as a branch of Scientic Realism? Or is it a foundamental diffenrent position/paradigme do to the epistemic relativism CR claim. Maybe you can make a video about CR and maybe the diffenrence between CR and SR.
Our world doesn't change when our paradigm changes. I have to disagree with Kuhn on that, if that is what he actually asserted. Rather, our understanding of the world changes. The world, independent of our mind, has remained the same.
i think what thomas kuhn is saying is because he is an instrumentalist this means that he is agnostic about the stuff we can t see, so when we observe them they will make things more clear and thus will change our perspective and understanding of the world
Metaphysical statements are outside of observation.
Realism, pretty much by definition, say science can make true statements about unobservables.
radio waves are quite real. Dark matter describes confusion about math, not actual matter.
Bullet Cluster
"Joints"? Prediction is the issue.
Any ideas how a cite these video lectures in an essay?
www[dot]easybib[dot]com/guides/citation-guides/apa-format/youtube-video/
I think I have to take objection with your very first question. Science doesn't "describe" anything. Science is not a language or a description. It's a process. It's a method. You either "do science" or you "do NOT do science." So I think a better phrasing of your question would be "what is science trying to accomplish?" Or perhaps, "what is the point of doing science?"
The answer to that question might then be something like "science is a process for evaluating synthetic propositions." Or perhaps, "science is a process for finding propositions that accurately model reality"---that sort of thing. But just be careful with the way you phrase your questions. Simply phrasing them poorly can lead one down all sorts of nasty dead-end rabbit holes.
Science is a process, but scientific facts that are established from that process do (or are intended to) describe reality.
Though, we may still be partly on the same page. I would agree with your statement here:
" 'Or perhaps, "science is a process for finding propositions that accurately model reality'---that sort of thing. "
AntiCitizenX
Describing the world IS a process or accomplishment.
AntiCitizenX make a video on these topics. Or just Phil of Sci. I loved your video on Truth. I shared it all over the place last year.
@@thotslayer9914 what are we calling metaphysics exactly?
@@thotslayer9914 I have many problems. They usually stem from things outside of my control, which is irrational.
You claim that the positivist approach of reducing statements about the theoretical entity of radio waves to the behaviour of a physical radio receiver is problematic because "radio receiver" is a functional definition meaning anything that can receive radio waves. I think this objection is spurious; surely you can pick a specific "recipe" for building a standard reference type of radio receiver, and reduce your statements about radio waves to the behaviour of a radio receiver built according to that recipe. You can then show empirically that other methods of receiving radio waves produce the same results and define a radio receiver as anything that behaves similarly to the reference radio receiver, giving a sound basis to the functional definition of a radio receiver that way. Up to the limits of your empirical measurements, I think it doesn't matter which type of radio receiver you use as the reference model.
He has problem with radios? Language is always ambiguous. philosophy spends too mu h time with bickering over linguistic ambiguities as if there is something profound about it. Science adopts language/concepts adequate to make predictions.