Scientific Objectivity

[Veritas Aequitas]

When I state there are objective moral facts, I am equating it as similar to Scientific Objectivity which is ultimately subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

Basically, there are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. Objectivity in the Philosophical Realism Sense
2. Objectivity in the FSK Sense

As with the above there are Two Sense of Scientific Objectivity
1. Scientific Philosophical Realism - absolute mind-independence
2. Scientific Empirical Realism - relative mind-independence

What is Scientific Objectivity in General?

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.
Scientific research involves using the scientific method, which seeks to objectively explain the events of nature in a reproducible way.[176]
Scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method:
-there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers;
-this objective reality is governed by natural laws;
-these laws were discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#S ... c_research

Taken in its entirety, the scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving while minimizing the effects of subjective and confirmation bias.[189]
Intersubjective verifiability, the ability to reach a consensus and reproduce results, is fundamental to the creation of all scientific knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Scientific_method

Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs.[1]
It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method.
It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility.
To be considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in a collective understanding of the world.
Such demonstrable knowledge has ordinarily conferred demonstrable powers of prediction or technology.

The problem of philosophical objectivity is contrasted with personal subjectivity, sometimes exacerbated by the overgeneralization of a hypothesis to the whole. For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation appears to be the norm for the attraction between celestial bodies, but it was later refined and extended—and philosophically superseded—by the more general theory of relativity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/
Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science.
It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors.
Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society.

Popper's interpretation of objectivity is consistently pragmatic.
He holds that a claim to objectivity is established sufficiently for the needs of empirical science when it is grounded in intersubjective agreement, without making any claim that the subjectivity of inter-subjective agreement has been transmuted into or replaced by objectivity in the classical realistic sense.
Objectivity As "Intersubjective Agreement"
Eugene Freeman
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27902304

................

As stated above there are Two Sense of Scientific Objectivity
1. Scientific Philosophical Realism - absolute mind-independence
2. Scientific Empirical Realism - relative mind-independence


1. Scientific Philosophical Realism - absolute mind-independence
Scientific Philosophical Realism, generally Scientific Realism claims there exists a reality that is absolutely mind-independent, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
As had argued Philosophical Realism is grounded on an illusion, thus false and not tenable as a philosophical theory.

2. Scientific Empirical Realism - relative mind-independence
What the above imply is there is no real absolutely mind-independent objective reality out there. Science merely assumes there is such a relative mind-independent objective reality on a methodological not ontological basis.
Whatever is regarded as scientific objectivity, it is ultimately grounded on the subjective [collective of subjects], i.e. intersubjectivity;

If objectivity is essential it must be accessible, a lesson not lost on received views of scientific objectivity placing objective control within the impersonal methods of scientific practice.5
One may talk of the objectivity of science, but not of the objectivity of a world beyond science.
What makes a line of inquiry ‘objective’ is not the topics the inquiry is about, but the practices of adjudication and confirmation with which the inquiry is conducted.
Objectivity becomes a product of proper method.
The price of objectivity, thus viewed, is a public methodology subjecting scientific statements to the test of independent and impartial criteria without glancing back to an inner-outer distinction.
Objectivity, Empiricism and Truth: Newell

My definition of what is objective and factual is that which is conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].
For example, objective scientific facts are grounded upon the scientific FSK.

Similarly as above, it is undeniable there are objective moral facts which must be grounded upon the scientific FSK and the specific moral FSK.
Objective moral facts in this case are not related to the subjective rightness or wrongness judgments, opinions and beliefs of individuals or groups that are not verified and justified.

The question is how credible are these objective moral facts [dealt in different OP].

Anyone here deny scientific knowledge are objective grounded upon intersubjective agreement within the scientific FSK as in the above sense?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Most of the objection to the above is when those as Philosophical Realists viewed 'objectivity' as that which exists absolutely independent of the subject or observer. Example, the moon exists objectively regardless of whether there are subjects cognizing it or before there were humans or after humans are extinct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters.
Realism about a certain kind of thing is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, ....
Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.
Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

I have countered the above Philosophical Realism is not realistic since it relied on an absolutely independent external thing-in-itself which is an illusion.
Thus such an idea of objectivity is illusory.

[FlashDangerpants]

There might be something that objective truths do that cannot be replicated by subjective anythings.... and the point of science things such as repeatable experiments may perhaps be to get at that thing. And moral "objectivity" may have no such thing to aim at and thus no claim to any similarity to scientific objectivity.



Or, you know, waste another 5 years trying to analyse objectivity on the basis of what you wish it was made out of instead of the basis of what it does. The next five years of Vaginal Arquebus weren't very likely to offer an improvement on the previous 5 anyway.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Rather, the point is "objectivity = intersubjective consensus within a FSK"

No. What we call objectivity is reliance on facts, rather than beliefs, judgements or opinions.

Deception!!
You merely state " beliefs, judgements or opinions." and try to get away with that?

Note "a" in "a sentient being" [a = singular]:

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

The "a sentient being" is critical in the definition of "objectivity" within philosophy which is applicable also the Philosophy of Science.

Objectivity is definitely NOT reliance on 'intersubjective consensus within a framework and system of knowledge'.

You continue to mistake how we may arrive at a conclusion with the nature of the conclusion.

And, btw, 'intersubjectivity' is just aggregated 'subjectivity'. And, similarly, 'consensus' is just aggregated opinion.

Since scientific facts are not dependent on a sentient being, then, they are qualified to be termed 'objective'.

Btw, I am not claiming absolute objectivity but merely "objectivity" as defined and qualified plus conditioned upon the scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] taking into account of all its weaknesses and limitations.

My version of 'objectivity' is valid and sound as grounded on scientific objectivity conditioned upon the definition of philosophical objectivity.

On the other hand, you are merely babbling and claiming 'absolute objectivity' or unconditional objectivity without any reference to any Framework and System of Knowledge.

If you think you are smart,
show me a fact of absolute objectivity without reference to any FSK?

Checkmate!
If you assert;
-'Water is H20' that is only valid within the science-chemistry FSK.
-'Snow is white' that is only valid within the science-physics, chemistry FSK.
-'the cat on the mat' that is only valid within the science biology, physics, chemistry FSK.

Thus, my point,
whatever is an objective fact must be conditioned to a specific FSK [aggregated subjectivity] without exception.

Warning:
Don't be hasty and forget my 3 phases of realization, knowing and saying of reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is another support for Scientific Objectivity;

E. Agazzi, Scientific Objectivity and Its Contexts,
Of course, certain philosophers of science deny that science deserves the qualification of providing objective knowledge, and even claim that the concepts of scientific method and scientific rigour are fictitious.
According to them, science is simply a social practice, with no special features making it superior to or even clearly distinct from other social practices.
We shall explore some of these claims later in this book, and show how they are unjustified and misleading.

However we shall not begin this discussion here, for two reasons:
first, because we would like to investigate the much sounder and much more widely accepted view (especially among scientists) that science actually provides objective knowledge.
Second, because the critical evaluation of the opposite thesis will be more precise after the clarification of what we can really mean by scientific objectivity.
After this clarification it will be possible to accept certain claims of the socially-oriented position, without giving up the requirement of scientific objectivity.

https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Objec ... 3319046594

[Iwannaplato]

Anyone here deny scientific knowledge are objective grounded upon intersubjective agreement within the scientific FSK as in the above sense?

Sure, yes, I deny it. What you choose out of the various facts about brains is based on your subjective preferences. Then you suggest we enhance those aspects of brain processes and not others. That's purely subjective. So, yes, science has said some of the things about brains you say. Science has also concluded other things. You choose to focus on things that match your subjective taste in human behavior and attitude. That makes the entire process subjective.

If someone who likes conflict and war goes and focuses on facts about aggressive parts of human brains, or facets of human brains that lead to violence and says he wants to call aggression and violence moral behavior and further to enhance these part of the brain, he is also being 100% subjective, even though he has used some objective facts in his argument.

The program is subjective, even if it uses some facts because it is selective. It might be universal, if the whole brain supported whatever behavior/attitude you wanted. IOW one could argue then that everybody wants this. But that doesn't make it objective, just universal. But that would certainly be stronger. However since the selection process of both facts focused on and goal aimed for are utterly subjective, the whole thing is subjective.

Hitler thought there were different physiological tendencies in the races. There are. But his racial theory was utterly subjective. Just because some facts get tossed in does not reduce the subjective facet of the program the slightest bit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If objectivity is essential it must be accessible, a lesson not lost on received views of scientific objectivity placing objective control within the impersonal methods of scientific practice.5

One may talk of the objectivity of science, but not of the objectivity of a world beyond science.

What makes a line of inquiry ‘objective’ is not the topics the inquiry is about, but the practices of adjudication and confirmation with which the inquiry is conducted.

Objectivity becomes a product of proper method.

The price of objectivity, thus viewed, is a public methodology subjecting scientific statements to the test of independent and impartial criteria without glancing back to an inner-outer distinction.
Objectivity, Empiricism and Truth: Newell

[Iwannaplato]

If objectivity is essential it must be accessible, a lesson not lost on received views of scientific objectivity placing objective control within the impersonal methods of scientific practice.5

One may talk of the objectivity of science, but not of the objectivity of a world beyond science.

What makes a line of inquiry ‘objective’ is not the topics the inquiry is about, but the practices of adjudication and confirmation with which the inquiry is conducted.

Objectivity becomes a product of proper method.

The price of objectivity, thus viewed, is a public methodology subjecting scientific statements to the test of independent and impartial criteria without glancing back to an inner-outer distinction.
Objectivity, Empiricism and Truth: Newell

So, in your own words: what is he saying?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If objectivity is essential it must be accessible, a lesson not lost on received views of scientific objectivity placing objective control within the impersonal methods of scientific practice.5

One may talk of the objectivity of science, but not of the objectivity of a world beyond science.

What makes a line of inquiry ‘objective’ is not the topics the inquiry is about, but the practices of adjudication and confirmation with which the inquiry is conducted.

Objectivity becomes a product of proper method.

The price of objectivity, thus viewed, is a public methodology subjecting scientific statements to the test of independent and impartial criteria without glancing back to an inner-outer distinction.
Objectivity, Empiricism and Truth: Newell

So, in your own words: what is he saying?

Scientific Objectivity is not about objects beyond what is realized, experienced and observed, i.e. not the sort of mind-independent positive noumenon that Atla insisted upon.
-"not of the objectivity of a world beyond science"
-without glancing back to an inner-outer distinction."

What is scientific Objectivity is conditioned with a specific human based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSR-FSK]. i.e.

-placing objective control [i.e. by humans] within the impersonal methods of scientific practice
- it about, the practices of adjudication and confirmation with which the inquiry is conducted.
Objectivity becomes a product of proper method, a human-based FSK.

[Atla]

So, in your own words: what is he saying?

Scientific Objectivity is not about objects beyond what is realized, experienced and observed, i.e. not the sort of mind-independent positive noumenon that Atla insisted upon.
-"not of the objectivity of a world beyond science"
-without glancing back to an inner-outer distinction."

What is scientific Objectivity is conditioned with a specific human based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSR-FSK]. i.e.

-placing objective control [i.e. by humans] within the impersonal methods of scientific practice
- it about, the practices of adjudication and confirmation with which the inquiry is conducted.
Objectivity becomes a product of proper method, a human-based FSK.

I haven't read back, but what a miserable, desperate attempt. The positive noumenon IS what science deals with, that IS the world of science, the end.
The world beyond science is merely another part of the noumenon of which we can't say anything scientific because it's beyond science if it exists at all.

[Iwannaplato]

Scientific Objectivity is not about objects beyond what is realized, experienced and observed, i.e. not the sort of mind-independent positive noumenon that Atla insisted upon.
-"not of the objectivity of a world beyond science"
-without glancing back to an inner-outer distinction."

Which you, like Atla, glance back at. It's just you say No and he says yes, but you're both glancing back.

What is scientific Objectivity is conditioned with a specific human based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSR-FSK]. i.e.

Well, of course. Scientific methodology is a kind of framework and system for doing things and drawing conclusions. It's a human activity. But that doesn't mean ANYTHING at all regarding a mind independent reality.

Science is a set of human processes. Yup.
So, the Moon isn't there when we aren't looking. Nope, you can't conclude that.

-placing objective control [i.e. by humans] within the impersonal methods of scientific practice
- it about, the practices of adjudication and confirmation with which the inquiry is conducted.
Objectivity becomes a product of proper method, a human-based FSK.

We call some conclusions objective because we think (perhaps correctly ((setting that issue aside))) that the methodology used to arrive at it was rigorous in a way we respect and think works. The objectivity of Scientific objectivity is not the objects out there, independent or not, according to this guy who is expressing his opinion. Because that is a quality of the research and analysis. That isn't weighing in on whether there are objects or not. Or, really, he's not weighing on that. You and Atla do weigh in on that. You both make objective claims, so you both go beyond glancing.

Personlly I don't think that's a problem, but it's not like this author is implicitly judging only Atla's glancing, he'd be judging both of your glancings.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Scientific Objectivity is not about objects beyond what is realized, experienced and observed, i.e. not the sort of mind-independent positive noumenon that Atla insisted upon.
-"not of the objectivity of a world beyond science"
-without glancing back to an inner-outer distinction."

Which you, like Atla, glance back at. It's just you say No and he says yes, but you're both glancing back.

What is scientific Objectivity is conditioned with a specific human based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSR-FSK]. i.e.

Well, of course. Scientific methodology is a kind of framework and system for doing things and drawing conclusions. It's a human activity. But that doesn't mean ANYTHING at all regarding a mind independent reality.

Science is a set of human processes. Yup.
So, the Moon isn't there when we aren't looking. Nope, you can't conclude that.

-placing objective control [i.e. by humans] within the impersonal methods of scientific practice
- it about, the practices of adjudication and confirmation with which the inquiry is conducted.
Objectivity becomes a product of proper method, a human-based FSK.

We call some conclusions objective because we think (perhaps correctly ((setting that issue aside))) that the methodology used to arrive at it was rigorous in a way we respect and think works. The objectivity of Scientific objectivity is not the objects out there, independent or not, according to this guy who is expressing his opinion. Because that is a quality of the research and analysis. That isn't weighing in on whether there are objects or not. Or, really, he's not weighing on that. You and Atla do weigh in on that. You both make objective claims, so you both go beyond glancing.

Personlly I don't think that's a problem, but it's not like this author is implicitly judging only Atla's glancing, he'd be judging both of your glancings.

The author had already stated, scientific objectivity is
"not of the objectivity of a world beyond science"

The "objectivity of a world beyond science" is the objectivity claimed by Philosophical or Metaphysical Realists where there are objective-objects [within an objective reality] which are mind-independent.
I have argued this claim of objectivity is grounded on an illusion.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

The author did not commit himself of the objectivity of philosophical realism.

What the author implied here is that scientific facts which are scientifically objective are grounded upon a human-based scientific FSK.
Because scientific objectivity is human-based it cannot be mind-independent.

All objectivity grounded on a human-based FSK cannot be mind-independent.
As such objectivity of a human-based moral FSK is not mind-independent.
Thus, there are objective moral facts, i.e. that morality is objective is in the same sense of scientific objectivity as presented by the author.

PH and his likes, argued morality cannot be objective, because there are no objective facts that are independent of the human conditions [i.e. mind-independent].

But this OP demonstrated otherwise,
as with human-based scientific objectivity, there are human-based objective moral facts, i.e. that morality is objective is in the same sense of scientific objectivity as presented by the author.

....................
In Atla's case, "The positive noumenon IS what science deals with, that IS the world of science,"
the above implied the world of science is independent of the scientists and the scientific methodology [the FSK].
Whereas the author's scientific and objectivity and its facts are not independent of the scientists and the scientific methodology.

[Iwannaplato]

The author had already stated, scientific objectivity is
"not of the objectivity of a world beyond science"

To me that's a very clunky sentence. Perhaps you are right that's what he means. But 1) he hasn't supported such a claim in what you quoted. So, you posted someone expressing his view and 2) the wording itself doesn't support that interpretation. Again, he may believe what you are saying, but it's not at all clear in that sentence. And it's really rather easy to make it clear.

Obviously the objectivity of science is not the objectivity of something else.

The "objectivity of a world beyond science" is the objectivity claimed by Philosophical or Metaphysical Realists where there are objective-objects [within an objective reality] which are mind-independent.
I have argued this claim of objectivity is grounded on an illusion.

I have noticed that.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

The author did not commit himself of the objectivity of philosophical realism.

And? That was part of my point. You and Atla have committed yourselves to opposed positions. The author seems not to have done what either of you have.

What the author implied here is that scientific facts which are scientifically objective are grounded upon a human-based scientific FSK.
Because scientific objectivity is human-based it cannot be mind-independent.

And a writing teacher would point out that there is a conflation in the ambiguous referent 'it'. Of course science, a field of human activity with a large mental component, is not mind-independent.

All objectivity grounded on a human-based FSK cannot be mind-independent.
As such objectivity of a human-based moral FSK is not mind-independent.
Thus, there are objective moral facts, i.e. that morality is objective is in the same sense of scientific objectivity as presented by the author.

I know you have that position. Does the author?

PH and his likes, argued morality cannot be objective, because there are no objective facts that are independent of the human conditions [i.e. mind-independent].

And all the potential conflations around 'fact.' But does the moon exist when it is not being looked at, that's another kettle of fish.

And he seems to be a scientific realist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfOI5FbsYA&t=1342s

But this OP demonstrated otherwise,
as with human-based scientific objectivity, there are human-based objective moral facts, i.e. that morality is objective is in the same sense of scientific objectivity as presented by the author.

Yes, you believe this.

....................

In Atla's case, "The positive noumenon IS what science deals with, that IS the world of science,"
the above implied the world of science is independent of the scientists and the scientific methodology [the FSK].

No, he is asserting that science is drawing conclusions about things considered independent of science, not that the science itself is independent of minds.

Whereas the author's scientific and objectivity and its facts are not independent of the scientists and the scientific methodology.

I think you may be misinterpreting the author, given that he seems to be defending scientific realism.

I tried to find a way to read his articles without paying, but could not.

But let's be clear. If Atla quotes a scientific realist, he hasn't then demonstrated that you are wrong. And certainly not with a quote like the one you chose that so ambiguous. Perhaps it is clear in context.

No one here doubts that there are antirealists of various kinds. So, what you have demonstrated by posting what you did is something no one contest: there are antirealist philosophers.

Just as, presumably, you would agree there are philosophers who are realists.

It seems to me he is, yes, against naive realism, but then so is Atla. But he is also against naive antirealism:

Naive realism amounts to disregarding that no access to reality is given outside meaning and language, naive antirealism amounts to overlooking that language refers to something different from language itself

And he considers himself a realist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The author had already stated, scientific objectivity is
"not of the objectivity of a world beyond science"

To me that's a very clunky sentence. Perhaps you are right that's what he means. But 1) he hasn't supported such a claim in what you quoted. So, you posted someone expressing his view and 2) the wording itself doesn't support that interpretation. Again, he may believe what you are saying, but it's not at all clear in that sentence. And it's really rather easy to make it clear.

Obviously the objectivity of science is not the objectivity of something else.

The "objectivity of a world beyond science" is the objectivity claimed by Philosophical or Metaphysical Realists where there are objective-objects [within an objective reality] which are mind-independent.
I have argued this claim of objectivity is grounded on an illusion.

I have noticed that.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

The author did not commit himself of the objectivity of philosophical realism.

And? That was part of my point. You and Atla have committed yourselves to opposed positions. The author seems not to have done what either of you have.

What the author implied here is that scientific facts which are scientifically objective are grounded upon a human-based scientific FSK.
Because scientific objectivity is human-based it cannot be mind-independent.

And a writing teacher would point out that there is a conflation in the ambiguous referent 'it'. Of course science, a field of human activity with a large mental component, is not mind-independent.

All objectivity grounded on a human-based FSK cannot be mind-independent.
As such objectivity of a human-based moral FSK is not mind-independent.
Thus, there are objective moral facts, i.e. that morality is objective is in the same sense of scientific objectivity as presented by the author.

I know you have that position. Does the author?

PH and his likes, argued morality cannot be objective, because there are no objective facts that are independent of the human conditions [i.e. mind-independent].

And all the potential conflations around 'fact.' But does the moon exist when it is not being looked at, that's another kettle of fish.

And he seems to be a scientific realist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfOI5FbsYA&t=1342s

But this OP demonstrated otherwise,
as with human-based scientific objectivity, there are human-based objective moral facts, i.e. that morality is objective is in the same sense of scientific objectivity as presented by the author.

Yes, you believe this.

....................

In Atla's case, "The positive noumenon IS what science deals with, that IS the world of science,"
the above implied the world of science is independent of the scientists and the scientific methodology [the FSK].

No, he is asserting that science is drawing conclusions about things considered independent of science, not that the science itself is independent of minds.

Whereas the author's scientific and objectivity and its facts are not independent of the scientists and the scientific methodology.

I think you may be misinterpreting the author, given that he seems to be defending scientific realism.

I tried to find a way to read his articles without paying, but could not.

But let's be clear. If Atla quotes a scientific realist, he hasn't then demonstrated that you are wrong. And certainly not with a quote like the one you chose that so ambiguous. Perhaps it is clear in context.

No one here doubts that there are antirealists of various kinds. So, what you have demonstrated by posting what you did is something no one contest: there are antirealist philosophers.

Just as, presumably, you would agree there are philosophers who are realists.

It seems to me he is, yes, against naive realism, but then so is Atla. But he is also against naive antirealism:

Naive realism amounts to disregarding that no access to reality is given outside meaning and language, naive antirealism amounts to overlooking that language refers to something different from language itself

And he considers himself a realist.

Who is the 'he' and 'himself' you are referring to?
The OP quote is not from Evandro Agazzi [your link] but rather it is from

OBJECTIVITY, EMPIRICISM AND TRUTH
R. W. Newell
https://www.amazon.com/Objectivity-Empi ... 1138908657

• Originally published in 1986. Wittgenstein, William James, Thomas Kuhn and John Wisdom share an attitude towards problems in the theory of knowledge which is fundamentally in conflict with the empiricist tradition. They encourage the idea that in understanding the central concepts of epistemology – objectivity, certainty and reasoning – people and their practices matter most. This clash between orthodox empiricism and a freshly inspired pragmatism forms the background to the strands of argument in this book. With these philosophers as a guide, it points to new directions by showing how the theory of knowledge can be shaped around our actions without sacrificing reason’s control over our beliefs.

Newell is more on the pragmatism approach.

In general real scientists do not give a damn whether they are realists or antirealists.
What real science is concern is whether the conclusions based on their observations in compliance with their human-based scientific FSK are acceptable by their peers or are successfully applicable to the real world or not.

At most, the scientific FSK will merely ASSUME [note ASSUME] for convenience sake there are a 'reality' out there to be discovered.

• Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
  It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
  The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
  The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

What Atla is after is that scientists are directing their attention at "something" that is independent of themselves which is the real independent thing.
No,no, no...
As I had stated,
tt most, the scientific FSK will merely ASSUME [note ASSUME] for convenience sake there are a 'reality' out there to be discovered.
When it is ASSUME, it is assumed by humans and that means it cannot be absolutely independent.

Atla [and his likes] is not willing to concede scientists are merely assuming there is something out there, but rather insist there is something really real out there that scientists are directing their attention at.

[Iwannaplato]

Who is the 'he' and 'himself' you are referring to?
The OP quote is not from Evandro Agazzi

Ah, my apologies. I messed up there. I saw the later post of yours with Agazzi and made a false connection. In any case, Agazzi does not seem to be an antirealist, and doesn't support your position.

He go along with Atla on this one....

What Atla is after is that scientists are directing their attention at "something" that is independent of themselves which is the real independent thing.