Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 7:18 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 9:19 pm
I shouId, however, have been cIearer. He's not your kind of antirealist - one who has a metaphysicaI stance on mind independent reaIity. InstrumentaIists, to be intrumentaIists, need not say there is no externaI independent reality. They are focused on the effectiveness of the ideas and not on whether thay match reality. Functionally agnostic. Pragmatic focus. And if one disagrees with a specific realist that doesn't mean one has the opposite opinions. Just as an agnostic can disagree with an atheist, whiIe not being a theist.
To be a realist [philosophical realist] the definition is very clear, i.e. believe in an
absolutely mind-independent reality, it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not;
The word 'absolutely' as far as I can tell is not one you will find in most definitions of realism, but otherwise, yes, this is realism. Adding words to paint opposing positions in extreme terms gives no additional information.
Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has
mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
And you see there no use of the term absolute or absolutely.
Antirealism [generally philosophical realism] literally mean, not agreeing with philosophical realism's idea of mind-independence as defined above.
Sure, including moral anti-realism.
As I had stated, philosophical realism is driven by an evolutionary default, thus primal and primitive.
Such an immature thinking is not acceptable by many who could think beyond it for many reasons.
And this is unnecessary and essentially ad hom, unless that the topic is: where did the belief in realism come from. Empathy is an evolutionary default in mammals, but calling your position which favors empathy or you yourself immature for valuing it would be both rude and meaningless as substance in a debate. The urge to go ad hom is also primal and primitive. The form of the attack is somewhat modern - we need language to do it - but the urge to attack the other person is driven by neuronal patterns in the brain that go way back.
And for someone who values empathy, you have some odd habits in the ways you frame the beliefs of those you disagree with and also the way you frame the people you disagree with.
Antirealism is just like atheism, i.e. anti-theism and atheist who do not agree with theism has their own personal beliefs.
Peachy. But what I was writing about was intrumentalism which is a non-realist approach. There are all sorts of non-realisms
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/
Non-realism can take many forms, depending on whether or not it is the existence or independence dimension of realism that is questioned or rejected. The forms of non-realism can vary dramatically from subject-matter to subject-matter, but error-theories, non-cognitivism, instrumentalism, nominalism,relativism, certain styles of reductionism, and eliminativism typically reject realism by rejecting the existence dimension, while idealism, subjectivism, and anti-realism typically concede the existence dimension but reject the independence dimension. Philosophers who subscribe to quietism deny that there can be such a thing as substantial metaphysical debate between realists and their non-realist opponents (because they either deny that there are substantial questions about existence or deny that there are substantial questions about independence).
There may be some intrumentalist who say there are no noumena, no things in themselves, but in general, they focus away from metaphysical positions like this in either direction.
According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes.[1]
From Wikipedia
I note: that my point, which you quoted, was focused on whether instrumentalists in general are assuming/concluding as you do that objects do not exist independently of humans.
You do not address the issue above, even though it's in the quote, and make assertions about other things.
And my pointing this out does not mean you HAVE TO respond to my point, even if you quote it. Obviously you are free to not respond to the points and arguments I make. I think it would be clearer to readers, including me, and perhaps even you, if you did quote me as if your response is to the point I am making. But of course you're free to continue to do such things.
And I am free to point them out.
Given that this kind of thing happens regularly, I one could get frustrated. Since, if one takes the dialogue seriously, it means one must repeat oneself again and again in the hope that the point will actually get noticed and responded to. And it seems the pattern is not a pattern of error, but one of convenience.
So, given I am, in addition to you, free, my responses may seem to ignore your points. I can, in addition to you, use another person's posts and jumping off points to just repeat my positions.
I follow him on twitter/X so I'll look into it.