I know this is seven years old but thank you so much for making this! I was really interested in this section in my class and wanted to explore it a little more and your series has been so helpful to me.
Is the distinction between "observable" entities and "unobservable" entities black and white? I can't observe a plant cell with my unaided eye, but I can with the aid of a simple microscope. Whereas something like the Higgs Boson requires elaborate instrumentation and inference to observe. Shouldn't there be a spectrum of how directly an entity can be observed?
It really is inappropriate to present the observations around the eclipse of 1919 and their validating effects on Einstein's Relativity theory as being done by Eddington in isolation. As if Newtonian Mechanics, the most successful scientific theory in history at the time, would be jettisoned after a single observation. Presenting it this way gives the Public the impression that this is how scientific confirmation works, when this couldn't be further from the truth. Scientific observation requires both repeated measures, and replicated experiments to carry that kind of weight, and this is precisely what happened with Frank Watson Dyson, Charles Davidson, Andrew Crommelin, and ultimately William Wallace Campbell, all of whom participated in the replication/repetition of the observation. Again, no one in their right mind would ever let go of Classical Mechanics because one person made an unreplicated observation somewhere.
I object to the term "unobservables". These things aren't no way observable. If these are unobservable, cos they require instrument, then to a blind man everything is unobservable since they lack the biological instruement to observe thing. By that logic, everything is unobservable. Something is only truely unobservable when they can't be tested by any means. Luminiferous Aether fits this bill, so does the concept of God. And this is why told the induction is not applicable here.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I know this is seven years old but thank you so much for making this! I was really interested in this section in my class and wanted to explore it a little more and your series has been so helpful to me.
This material is of exceptional quality compared to other things that can be found on UA-cam on similar topics.
Thanks very much for this. I'm looking forward to looking at forms of realism in more detail.
Is the distinction between "observable" entities and "unobservable" entities black and white?
I can't observe a plant cell with my unaided eye, but I can with the aid of a simple microscope. Whereas something like the Higgs Boson requires elaborate instrumentation and inference to observe. Shouldn't there be a spectrum of how directly an entity can be observed?
Dude this has helped me so much to narrow in on these topics in a way I can easily understand. Great examples. Thank you! :)
Please I want a video on metaphysical realism
VERY usefull, thanks a lot 👍👍
These videos are an absolute blast
Thanks!
Thanks for this; very helpful for my Philosophy of Science module at uni.
Sources would be very helpful though.
Hi
I like your way of using examples.
Thank you for the video. This looks like a cool series.
Can you make a lecture series of Putnam?
Such a brilliant explanation
Hey kane, I’m curious about your position on the ontology of logic. I imagine you’re not a realist but just curious
Core claims of SR; observations, #2;-----the truth of a scientific theory is contextual.
sir book name please...
thank you
5 stars to you.
I love you Kane B
It really is inappropriate to present the observations around the eclipse of 1919 and their validating effects on Einstein's Relativity theory as being done by Eddington in isolation. As if Newtonian Mechanics, the most successful scientific theory in history at the time, would be jettisoned after a single observation. Presenting it this way gives the Public the impression that this is how scientific confirmation works, when this couldn't be further from the truth. Scientific observation requires both repeated measures, and replicated experiments to carry that kind of weight, and this is precisely what happened with Frank Watson Dyson, Charles Davidson, Andrew Crommelin, and ultimately William Wallace Campbell, all of whom participated in the replication/repetition of the observation. Again, no one in their right mind would ever let go of Classical Mechanics because one person made an unreplicated observation somewhere.
Why are you a scientific anti-realist? Is it because you believe that scientific theories (and the evidence behind them) are misleading?
He has a video titled ‘why I’m a scientific anti-realist’
I object to the term "unobservables". These things aren't no way observable. If these are unobservable, cos they require instrument, then to a blind man everything is unobservable since they lack the biological instruement to observe thing. By that logic, everything is unobservable.
Something is only truely unobservable when they can't be tested by any means. Luminiferous Aether fits this bill, so does the concept of God. And this is why told the induction is not applicable here.