Evolution; So Scientific Realism Undermines Itself

[Veritas Aequitas]

(This OP is in this thread because it has strong implication for me to counter the moral facts deniers and my claim 'there are moral facts and morality is objective).

It so nauseating [despite so many threads that prove otherwise] that many [PH, Atla and other scientific realists] here are making the dogmatic claim that Scientific Realism is directed at something [noumenon, thing-in-itself] that is absolutely real beyond its scientific process and conclusion.

For example, PH claims "what is fact" is a feature of reality that is just-is, being-so, that is/care the case, state of affairs that obtains with reference to the scientific process and conclusion.

B. They are physical processes - features of reality - which natural scientists are increasingly able to describe. And what sort of grounding do you think they need

Atla claimed science points to something that is an absolute mind-independent objective reality, i.e. the positive noumenon.

The above reifications of something is an illusion, more so, as in general scientific realists has to believe in Evolutionary Theory.
The above belief that there is something really real beyond the scientific process and conclusion is based innate metaphysical intuitions.

Here is the proof:

Reference: An Evolutionary Sceptical Challenge to Scientific Realism, by Christophe de Ray.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00226-3

Thesis: I will show, that Scientific Realism is a self-undermining position.

"‘Scientific Realism’ to be the view that our best scientific theories accurately represent real, mind-independent states of affairs."

"It is widely agreed that the methodology employed by the natural sciences is primarily abductive—that is, that inference to the best explanation (IBE) is its most central mode of inference." [abductive reasoning ]

3.1 The Argument
I will take an intuition to be a kind of disposition to hold certain beliefs (following van Inwagen 1997).
Thus, I will take it that an intuition is sound if the beliefs it produces are true.
Moreover, I will take intuitions to be metaphysical if the content of the beliefs they produce is metaphysical.

My argument is as follows:

1. If, given evolutionary theory, the soundness of our innate metaphysical intuitions would not at all explain our reliance on said intuitions, then believing evolutionary theory ought to make us distrust our innate metaphysical intuitions.
2. Given evolutionary theory, the soundness of our innate metaphysical intuitions would not at all explain our reliance on said intuitions.
3. Therefore, believing evolutionary theory ought to make us distrust our innate metaphysical intuitions.

I take it that (3) follows straightforwardly from (1) and (2).
I will thus motivate (1) and (2) in turn.

The conclusion is that, a scientific realist who believe in evolution theory [the best we have] ought to give up the idea of that something [independent objective reality, noumenon, thing-in-itself, fact-in-itself] that is beyond the scientific process and conclusion.

It is contradictory for a scientific realist to believe in evolutionary theory and at the same time claim there is an independent objective reality beyond scientific process and conclusion.

I suggest one to read the attached article to get a better idea of the argument.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00226-3

Discuss?? Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

The supporting threads [not all with links] for the OP as raised in this forum are the following;

1. Hume: External World is a Fabrication
2. Kant denounce the noumenon & thing-in-itself as illusions
3. Why the Moon is not Absolutely Mind-Independent
4. Van Fraasen: There are No Laws of Nature
5. Science Merely Assumes Mind-Independent Reality
6. Noumena are Intelligible Objects, thus Illusory
7. Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature
viewtopic.php?t=40248
8. Mind-Independent Things; a Scandal [Insult] to Philosophy
viewtopic.php?t=40182
9. Mind-Independent Things are Speculations & Assumptions
10. Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
11. The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
12. "Philosophical Realism" is an Evolutionary Default.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39975

There are many more supporting threads to the OP.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

Here is the proof:

Reference: An Evolutionary Sceptical Challenge to Scientific Realism, by Christophe de Ray.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00226-3
Discuss?? Views??

The problem with your communication is, for me, not your philosophical positions, but the way you communicate to we, other humans.
Here you say you are presenting proof.?!
Proofs are for math and symbolic logic.
You are presenting a decent argument. You are justifying your position. You have found something that go against the positions of people who disagree with you. Great.
But that's not proof.

It is someone making an argument and competently justifying their position.

Did you notice in the abstract that other philosophers have used skepticism based on evolutionary theory to undermine moral realism?

A common target of evolutionary scepticism is moral realism.

Now imagine someone posts a link and quotes one of those arguments
and
present it as
PROOF that you are wrong about moral facts.

You would not treat their link as PROOF, nor should anyone here take your link as Proof. It's just not.

Neither your post, nor the link, nor someong linking to an article ARGUING that moral realism is wrong
is proving
anything.

This is basic.

I do think that evolution-based perspectives can call into question very well both metaphysical and moral realism. I think it's interesting and great that it's brought up


I found an article that presents an interesting and I think a strong argument using evolutionary theory to......
Great.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Proofs are for math and symbolic logic."

This is based on ignorance and is so annoying because I have already explained many times, 'proof' is not exclusive to math and logic.

I suggest read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)
which show 'proof' is valid in many disciplines other than math and logic.

• "In most disciplines, evidence is required to prove something. Evidence is drawn from the experience of the world around us, with science obtaining its evidence from nature,[11] law obtaining its evidence from witnesses and forensic investigation,[12] and so on."

The author therein the article has also addressed and countered those who used evolutionary theory to refute moral realism:

• Sharon Street’s notorious ‘Darwinian Dilemma for realist theories of value’ (2006) argues that given moral realism and barring empirically implausible views of evolution, it would have taken an epistemically problematic “happy coincidence” for the evolutionary process to have given us cognitive capacities to form mostly true moral beliefs.
  "Her argument and various others have spawned a sizeable literature on so-called ‘evolutionary debunking arguments against morality’"

[Atla]

...

3.1 The Argument
I will take an intuition to be a kind of disposition to hold certain beliefs (following van Inwagen 1997).
...
2. Given evolutionary theory, the soundness of our innate metaphysical intuitions would not at all explain our reliance on said intuitions.

What the fuck? What does the sentence in 2. even mean?

We probably evolved the intuition that there is an objective external world, because there probably is one. So that's probably as sound and reliable as it gets.

Evolutionary theory holds that intuitions that don't work, tend to get selected out and disappear. But the intuition that there is an objective external world, just works, doesn't get selected out.

[Iwannaplato]

What the fuck? What does the sentence in 2. even mean?

We probably evolved the intuition that there is an objective external world, because there probably is one. So that's probably as sound and reliable as it gets.

I've always found it amusing that he thinks we had to believe in an external world...for our survival. But it's wrong, there isn't one. So it is utterly necessary to have a false belief to survive, but the correct belief about what is going on, if held, would have led to our deaths. And it never occurs to him that this needs some explanation. The false belief works, the correct belief would kill us. But the false belief has nothing to do with what is going on.(?).

I am not arguing that realism is correct when I point this out. I am pointing out that he does not notice these huge holes in what he would need to do to explain this. He just glides over these things.

Evolutionary theory holds that intuitions that don't work, tend to get selected out and disappear. But the intuition that there is an objective external world, just works, doesn't get selected out.

Yes, one should ask: why does a false belief not only work, but why does he consider it necessary AND that a true belief would fail. Because he has said it had to be like that.

And the attitude when this was brought up was more or less, well duh of course we need to believe in the external world so we avoid getting killed and can procreate and eat. And no point in this is there a moment of....Oh, ok, I have to explain something here.

Utterly unbelievable.

[Atla]

What the fuck? What does the sentence in 2. even mean?

We probably evolved the intuition that there is an objective external world, because there probably is one. So that's probably as sound and reliable as it gets.

I've always found it amusing that he thinks we had to believe in an external world...for our survival. But it's wrong, there isn't one. So it is utterly necessary to have a false belief to survive, but the correct belief about what is going on, if held, would have led to our deaths. And it never occurs to him that this needs some explanation. The false belief works, the correct belief would kill us. But the false belief has nothing to do with what is going on.(?).

I am not arguing that realism is correct when I point this out. I am pointing out that he does not notice these huge holes in what he would need to do to explain this. He just glides over these things.

Evolutionary theory holds that intuitions that don't work, tend to get selected out and disappear. But the intuition that there is an objective external world, just works, doesn't get selected out.

Yes, one should ask: why does a false belief not only work, but why does he consider it necessary AND that a true belief would fail. Because he has said it had to be like that.

And the attitude when this was brought up was more or less, well duh of course we need to believe in the external world so we avoid getting killed and can procreate and eat. And no point in this is there a moment of....Oh, ok, I have to explain something here.

Utterly unbelievable.

And he even goes on to say that realism undermines itself.

Well if the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy had a page on a "philosophy undermining itself", as an example it would use the claim: a false belief working and the correct belief killing us. And it would have a photo of VA next to it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What the fuck? What does the sentence in 2. even mean?

We probably evolved the intuition that there is an objective external world, because there probably is one. So that's probably as sound and reliable as it gets.

I've always found it amusing that he thinks we had to believe in an external world...for our survival.
But it's wrong, there isn't one.
So it is utterly necessary to have a false belief to survive, but the correct belief about what is going on, if held, would have led to our deaths.
And it never occurs to him that this needs some explanation.
The false belief works, the correct belief would kill us. But the false belief has nothing to do with what is going on.(?).

The above is a strawman.

It is a fact [FSK-ed], ALL humans are 'programmed' as an evolutionary default to believe in an external world to facilitate survival.
There is no question of an obligatory 'had to believe .." it is just something that is necessary and spontaneous.

The author defined scientific realism;
"‘Scientific Realism’ to be the view that our best scientific theories accurately represent real, mind-independent states of affairs."
Why is this point ignored?

1. What the OP argued against is when realists [philosophical] i.e. scientific realists insist there is an absolutely mind-independent external world regardless of the human conditions; that is to the extreme that the external world pre-existed humans and will continue to exists as "real" if humans are extinct.

However, if scientific realists believe in 1 above and at the same time believe in evolutionary theory - the best theory available - they are holding contradictory views.

Because scientific evolutionary theory is more realistic, then scientific realism is false.

In this case, scientific realists are grasping to illusions and are being delusional that "there is an an absolutely mind-independent external world regardless of the human conditions; that is to the extreme that the external world pre-existed humans and will continue to exists as "real" if humans are extinct."

So it is utterly necessary to have a false belief to survive, but the correct belief about what is going on, if held, would have led to our deaths.

I have never claimed nor implied the "correct belief" that would have led to our death.
Scientific truths are at best 'polished conjectures' i.e. not absolute truths, thus the well polished ones are retained and the subsequent 'tarnished' or very dull ones get rejected.

I am not arguing that realism is correct when I point this out. I am pointing out that he does not notice these huge holes in what he would need to do to explain this. He just glides over these things.

What is there to explain when the above point is a strawman.

Evolutionary theory holds that intuitions that don't work, tend to get selected out and disappear. But the intuition that there is an objective external world, just works, doesn't get selected out.

Yes, one should ask: why does a false belief not only work, but why does he consider it necessary AND that a true belief would fail. Because he has said it had to be like that.

And the attitude when this was brought up was more or less, well duh of course we need to believe in the external world so we avoid getting killed and can procreate and eat. And no point in this is there a moment of....Oh, ok, I have to explain something here.

Utterly unbelievable.

Strawman again.

Yes, "of course we need to believe in the external world so we avoid getting killed and can procreate and eat"
the problem is scientific realists [scientific realism] convert the above belief into a dogmatic fundamentalistic ideology without compromise i.e.

"‘Scientific Realism’ to be the view that our best scientific theories accurately represent real, mind-independent states of affairs."

In contrast, what is more realistic with the above is the scientific realists' view that the reality external world is merely conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.

[Atla]

What the fuck? What does the sentence in 2. even mean?

We probably evolved the intuition that there is an objective external world, because there probably is one. So that's probably as sound and reliable as it gets.

I've always found it amusing that he thinks we had to believe in an external world...for our survival.
But it's wrong, there isn't one.
So it is utterly necessary to have a false belief to survive, but the correct belief about what is going on, if held, would have led to our deaths.
And it never occurs to him that this needs some explanation.
The false belief works, the correct belief would kill us. But the false belief has nothing to do with what is going on.(?).

The above is a strawman.

It is a fact [FSK-ed], ALL humans are 'programmed' as an evolutionary default to believe in an external world to facilitate survival.
There is no question of an obligatory 'had to believe .." it is just something that is necessary and spontaneous.

The author defined scientific realism;
"‘Scientific Realism’ to be the view that our best scientific theories accurately represent real, mind-independent states of affairs."
Why is this point ignored?

1. What the OP argued against is when realists [philosophical] i.e. scientific realists insist there is an absolutely mind-independent external world regardless of the human conditions; that is to the extreme that the external world pre-existed humans and will continue to exists as "real" if humans are extinct.

However, if scientific realists believe in 1 above and at the same time believe in evolutionary theory - the best theory available - they are holding contradictory views.

Because scientific evolutionary theory is more realistic, then scientific realism is false.

In this case, scientific realists are grasping to illusions and are being delusional that "there is an an absolutely mind-independent external world regardless of the human conditions; that is to the extreme that the external world pre-existed humans and will continue to exists as "real" if humans are extinct."

So it is utterly necessary to have a false belief to survive, but the correct belief about what is going on, if held, would have led to our deaths.

I have never claimed nor implied the "correct belief" that would have led to our death.
Scientific truths are at best 'polished conjectures' i.e. not absolute truths, thus the well polished ones are retained and the subsequent 'tarnished' or very dull ones get rejected.

I am not arguing that realism is correct when I point this out. I am pointing out that he does not notice these huge holes in what he would need to do to explain this. He just glides over these things.

What is there to explain when the above point is a strawman.

Evolutionary theory holds that intuitions that don't work, tend to get selected out and disappear. But the intuition that there is an objective external world, just works, doesn't get selected out.

Yes, one should ask: why does a false belief not only work, but why does he consider it necessary AND that a true belief would fail. Because he has said it had to be like that.

And the attitude when this was brought up was more or less, well duh of course we need to believe in the external world so we avoid getting killed and can procreate and eat. And no point in this is there a moment of....Oh, ok, I have to explain something here.

Utterly unbelievable.

Strawman again.

Yes, "of course we need to believe in the external world so we avoid getting killed and can procreate and eat"
the problem is scientific realists [scientific realism] convert the above belief into a dogmatic fundamentalistic ideology without compromise i.e.

"‘Scientific Realism’ to be the view that our best scientific theories accurately represent real, mind-independent states of affairs."

In contrast, what is more realistic with the above is the scientific realists' view that the reality external world is merely conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK.

There's no good reason to think that human-based FSKs have any bearing on objective reality, fundamentally. The end.

[Skepdick]

There's no good reason to think that human-based FSKs have any bearing on objective reality, fundamentally. The end.

Then why do we have tunels under Geneva for reproducing the conditions similar to The Big Bang? Seems very very relevant to an FSK...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

[Atla]

There's no good reason to think that human-based FSKs have any bearing on objective reality, fundamentally. The end.

Then why do we have tunels under Geneva for reproducing the conditions similar to The Big Bang?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

I suppose your question made some sense to you, even though it doesn't.

[Skepdick]

There's no good reason to think that human-based FSKs have any bearing on objective reality, fundamentally. The end.

Then why do we have tunels under Geneva for reproducing the conditions similar to The Big Bang?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

I suppose your question made some sense to you, even though it doesn't.

Well, I can go on explaining to you how a very fundamental FSK caused mini-repeats of The Big Bang to happen under Geneva, but I'd probably be wasting my time.

[Atla]

Then why do we have tunels under Geneva for reproducing the conditions similar to The Big Bang?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

I suppose your question made some sense to you, even though it doesn't.

Well, I can go on explaining to you how a very fundamental FSK caused mini-repeats of The Big Bang to happen under Geneva, but I'd probably be wasting my time.

Which has fuck all to do with what I wrote.