Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 4:25 pm It's a minority, though a significant one. And antirealism is still a minority position in physics, also.

If they presented it like that, instead of presenting it like clear unambiguous settled fact, they might get farther.

The OP is flawed and stupid from the outset. 'Anti' means 'against' or 'opposed to'. It's not a term that can be applied to science. Science is impartial. It would be a pretty weird sort of a scientist who was 'opposed' to scientific fact-finding--regarding it as pointlessly subjective. Bringing QM into some bs philosophical position on 'morality' is a misuse of the term.

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 6:18 pm The OP is flawed and stupid from the outset. 'Anti' means 'against' or 'opposed to'. It's not a term that can be applied to science. Science is impartial. It would be a pretty weird sort of a scientist who was 'opposed' to scientific fact-finding--regarding it as pointlessly subjective. Bringing QM into some bs philosophical position on 'morality' is a misuse of the term.

I think the name antirealism is problematic and also even VA's anti-p realism or whatever he writes. In any case, QM's obviously grounded on realism. Might be a second language thing. Realism was the guiding model for science's history and continues to be the more main outlook. It may have led to evidence that in certain circumstances or perhaps even in general, realism is mistaken. But QM is grounded on realist research.

One could say that ZM might give or does give evidence of antirealism, but 'grounded' on, nah.

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 6:18 pm The OP is flawed and stupid from the outset. 'Anti' means 'against' or 'opposed to'. It's not a term that can be applied to science. Science is impartial. It would be a pretty weird sort of a scientist who was 'opposed' to scientific fact-finding--regarding it as pointlessly subjective. Bringing QM into some bs philosophical position on 'morality' is a misuse of the term.

Look at the Title of this website page,
it is "Philosophy Now Forum"
so we are discussing related philosophical issues and NOT purely scientific issues.
Realism vs ANTI-realism is a philosophical issue,
so,
"Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism"
is very relevant to this philosophical forum.

If you go into a purely scientific forum on QM,
most [with exception] don't give a fuck relating QM with realism or antirealism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 4:44 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 6:18 pm The OP is flawed and stupid from the outset. 'Anti' means 'against' or 'opposed to'. It's not a term that can be applied to science. Science is impartial. It would be a pretty weird sort of a scientist who was 'opposed' to scientific fact-finding--regarding it as pointlessly subjective. Bringing QM into some bs philosophical position on 'morality' is a misuse of the term.

Look at the Title of this website page,
it is "Philosophy Now Forum"
so we are discussing related philosophical issues and NOT purely scientific issues.
Realism vs ANTI-realism is a philosophical issue,
so,
"Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism"
is very relevant to this philosophical forum.

If you go into a purely scientific forum on QM,
most [with exception] don't give a fuck relating QM with realism or antirealism.

Then don't bring QM into it you moron. You are the confused one. And learn English before you start abusing those who respect the language.

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 4:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 4:44 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 6:18 pm The OP is flawed and stupid from the outset. 'Anti' means 'against' or 'opposed to'. It's not a term that can be applied to science. Science is impartial. It would be a pretty weird sort of a scientist who was 'opposed' to scientific fact-finding--regarding it as pointlessly subjective. Bringing QM into some bs philosophical position on 'morality' is a misuse of the term.

Look at the Title of this website page,
it is "Philosophy Now Forum"
so we are discussing related philosophical issues and NOT purely scientific issues.
Realism vs ANTI-realism is a philosophical issue,
so,
"Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism"
is very relevant to this philosophical forum.

If you go into a purely scientific forum on QM,
most [with exception] don't give a fuck relating QM with realism or antirealism.

Then don't bring QM into it you moron. You are the confused one. And learn English before you start abusing those who respect the language.

You are so ignorant. Complaining about another's English is a cheap shot. [unless it is so bad like scoring 10/100 at grade school level].

Philosophy is a 'meta-' element.
This is why we have Philosophy of [whatever].
Thus Philosophy of Science, Physics, QM and so on.
Look at the Board Index, we have Philosophy of Science, etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 4:53 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 4:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 4:44 am
Look at the Title of this website page,
it is "Philosophy Now Forum"
so we are discussing related philosophical issues and NOT purely scientific issues.
Realism vs ANTI-realism is a philosophical issue,
so,
"Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism"
is very relevant to this philosophical forum.

If you go into a purely scientific forum on QM,
most [with exception] don't give a fuck relating QM with realism or antirealism.

Then don't bring QM into it you moron. You are the confused one. And learn English before you start abusing those who respect the language.

You are so ignorant. Complaining about another's English is a cheap shot. [unless it is so bad like scoring 10/100 at grade school level].

Philosophy is a 'meta-' element.
This is why we have Philosophy of [whatever].
Thus Philosophy of Science, Physics, QM and so on.
Look at the Board Index, we have Philosophy of Science, etc.

It's not a 'cheap shot'. What is your first language? Why should I accept your crappy English when you would laugh at me if I was arguing with you in YOUR first language and getting it wrong all over the place (which I would)?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 4:31 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 4:25 pm I think instrumentalism is a philosophy, though it's a bit of an anti-ontological philosophy.

No it's not anti-ontological either. Instrumentalism is simply the lack of any philosophy.

So, an instrumentalist has no position on philosophical issues? It's not a stance in the philosophy of science?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 5:01 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 4:25 pm It's a minority, though a significant one. And antirealism is still a minority position in physics, also.

If they presented it like that, instead of presenting it like clear unambiguous settled fact, they might get farther.

Yes, 'let's explore' is probably a better heuristic than 'anyone who agrees with them is an idiot'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 6:24 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 4:31 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 4:25 pm I think instrumentalism is a philosophy, though it's a bit of an anti-ontological philosophy.

No it's not anti-ontological either. Instrumentalism is simply the lack of any philosophy.

So, an instrumentalist has no position on philosophical issues? It's not a stance in the philosophy of science?

It's a 'position' of having no position, a 'philosophy' of having no philosophy.

Well, back to my favourite hobby of not collecting stamps. There are so many ways one can go about not collecting stamps, I could list them all day. Not collecting stamps is one of the best activities ever.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 2:03 pm Well, back to my favourite hobby of not collecting stamps. There are so many ways one can go about not collecting stamps, I could list them all day. Not collecting stamps is one of the best activities ever.

not collecting stamps sounds fun, but it's all in the footwear...

stamping about in puddles right after a rain shower is best in galoshes...

-Imp

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 2:03 pm Well, back to my favourite hobby of not collecting stamps. There are so many ways one can go about not collecting stamps, I could list them all day. Not collecting stamps is one of the best activities ever.

Me I think Dewey, Rorty, Vahiinger, Mach, Van Frassen, Duhem and even in a sense Quine, all manage to collect stamps in the history of philosophy, meeting the various criteria for what a stamp is.

Your critique is like when the Republicans say the Democrats have no moral system. It's not that there are disagreements over what is moral and what is immoral, but the Democrats have no morality.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 4:29 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 2:03 pm Well, back to my favourite hobby of not collecting stamps. There are so many ways one can go about not collecting stamps, I could list them all day. Not collecting stamps is one of the best activities ever.

Me I think Dewey, Rorty, Vahiinger, Mach, Van Frassen, Duhem and even in a sense Quine, all manage to collect stamps in the history of philosophy, meeting the various criteria for what a stamp is.

Your critique is like when the Republicans say the Democrats have no moral system. It's not that there are disagreements over what is moral and what is immoral, but the Democrats have no morality.

I really don't know what you mean. Instrumentalists have no philosophical commitments, that's the point. Is this about some American "philosophers" calling absolutely anything a philosophy?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 4:44 am If you go into a purely scientific forum on QM,
most [with exception] don't give a fuck relating QM with realism or antirealism.

Just noticed this admission. Amazing. So people who actually care to understand the science itself don't do what VA does. They're much more cautious with their philosophical ideas about what the science implies. Only people who don't actually put in the effort to learn and understand the science do what VA does.