https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I argue, those who argued on the basis of philosophical realism begs-the-Question.
This is because philosophical realists merely assumes things and reality-out-there exists independent of the human conditions [minds] without sound justifications.
As such, whatever the conclusions arrived at based on p-realism begs-the-Question.
People like PH insists what-is-fact is a feature of reality, that is the case, just-is or a state of affairs which is absolute independent of the human conditions, i.e. opinions, beliefs, knowledge and judgments. To me, this is merely a linguistic fact not a really real fact.
When pressed PH will explained what is fact or that feature of reality is justified by science i.e. based on scientific realism.
But scientific realism is grounded on philosophical realism, i.e. science assumes whatever is to be discovered by science is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
As such, science as taken from the scientific realism perspective begs-the-question.
On the other hand, with scientific-antirealism [Kantian] there is no begging the question, since it relies of a scientific Framework and System [FSERC] without any assumption of some pre-existing things or reality awaiting discovery.
From AI [wR];
(AI offered alternative views, but I accept the one below)
Therefore, those who deny moral facts exist [thus morality is not objective] and leveraging their argument on Philosophical Realism which is grounded on the idea of mind*-independence [*or human conditions], begs-the-question.AI wrote:From a Kantian perspective, many arguments for philosophical realism would be seen as begging the question. Here's why:
Kant and the Limits of Knowledge:
Immanuel Kant, a famous antirealist philosopher, argued that our minds impose categories (like space, time, and causality) on our experience. These categories are necessary for us to make sense of the world, but they don't necessarily reflect the "thing-in-itself" – the ultimate reality that exists independent of our minds.
Science and Frameworks:
Kant would argue that science doesn't directly access this "thing-in-itself." Scientific theories are successful because they create a coherent framework for understanding our experiences within these categories. But they might not be directly "discovering" an objective reality.
p-Realism vs. Begging the Question:
P-Realist arguments that rely solely on the success of science as proof of a mind-independent reality would beg the question from a Kantian perspective. They assume the very thing they're trying to prove – that science reveals the true nature of reality. For Kant, science just gives us a successful human framework.
Discuss??
Views??
