Scientific Realism vs. Anti-Realism: Toward a Common Ground

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.10643v2
• Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 14:55:54 GMT
• Title: Scientific Realism vs. Anti-Realism: Toward a Common Ground
• Authors: Hanti Lin,
• Abstract summary: The debate between scientific realism and anti-realism remains at a stalemate. The key is to leverage the idea that everyone values some truths. This common ground also isolates a distinctively epistemic root of the irreconcilability in the realism debate.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: The debate between scientific realism and anti-realism remains at a stalemate, making reconciliation seem hopeless. Yet, important work remains: exploring a common ground, even if only to uncover deeper points of disagreement and, ideally, to benefit both sides of the debate. I propose such a common ground. Specifically, many anti-realists, such as instrumentalists, have yet to seriously engage with Sober's call to justify their preferred version of Ockham's razor through a positive account. Meanwhile, realists face a similar challenge: providing a non-circular explanation of how their version of Ockham's razor connects to truth. The common ground I propose addresses these challenges for both sides; the key is to leverage the idea that everyone values some truths and to draw on insights from scientific fields that study scientific inference -- namely, statistics and machine learning. This common ground also isolates a distinctively epistemic root of the irreconcilability in the realism debate.

Related papers

• Convergence to the Truth [0.0]
  This article reviews and develops a tradition in philosophy of science, called convergentism, which holds that inference methods should be assessed in terms of their abilities to converge to the truth. This tradition is compared with three competing ones: (1) explanationism, which holds that theory choice should be guided by a theory's overall balance of explanatory virtues, such as simplicity and fit with data; (2) instrumentalism, according to which scientific inference should be driven by the goal of obtaining useful models, rather than true theories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T08:44:14Z)
• A Reply to Makelov et al. (2023)'s "Interpretability Illusion" Arguments [59.87080148922358]
  We argue that Makelov et al. (2023) see in practice are artifacts of their training and evaluation paradigms. Though we disagree with their core characterization, Makelov et al. (2023)'s examples and discussion have undoubtedly pushed the field of interpretability forward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T10:27:42Z)
• Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttals [70.22179850619519]
  In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots. Recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning, one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu'soft' combat system. We are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T13:54:01Z)
• Bohr's Anti-Realist Realism in Contemporary (Quantum) Physics and Philosophy [0.0]
  We discuss the influential role of Niels Bohr's work in the anti-realist realist re-foundation of physics. We will focus in how, still today, anti-realist realism continues to rule the contemporary post-modern research in both (quantum) physics and philosophy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-24T14:09:20Z)
• Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness [55.037030060643126]
  Intersectionality is a critical framework that allows us to examine how social inequalities persist. We argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T21:02:09Z)
• Whence deep realism for Everettian quantum mechanics? [0.0]
  Shallow' and deep' versions of scientific realism may be distinguished as follows: the shallow realist is satisfied with belief in the existence of the posits of our best scientific theories. By contrast, deep realists claim that realism can be legitimate only if such entities are described in metaphysical terms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-30T00:58:04Z)
• Realistic From Far But Far From Realism: Withering Scientific Realism in the Quantum Case [0.0]
  We argue that realism was never really at stake in the debate over scientific theory. We argue that scientific realists believe that empirically adequate theories can be supplemented by interpretations that can mirror reality-as-it-is.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-12T15:20:57Z)
• Did they answer? Subjective acts and intents in conversational discourse [48.63528550837949]
  We present the first discourse dataset with multiple and subjective interpretations of English conversation. We show disagreements are nuanced and require a deeper understanding of the different contextual factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-09T16:34:19Z)
• Mythical Thought in Bohr's Anti-Realist Realism (Or: Lessons on How to Capture and Defeat Smoky Dragons) [0.0]
  Bohrian approach to quantum mechanics is essentially grounded on an inconsistent form of anti-realist realism. We will discuss the role of smoky dragons within both contemporary physics and philosophy of physics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-01T15:53:48Z)
• Non-Boolean Hidden Variables model reproduces Quantum Mechanics' predictions for Bell's experiment [91.3755431537592]
  Theory aimed to violate Bell's inequalities must start by giving up Boolean logic. "Hard" problem is to predict the time values when single particles are detected. "Soft" problem is to explain the violation of Bell's inequalities within (non-Boolean) Local Realism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-20T21:46:35Z)
• What Changed Your Mind: The Roles of Dynamic Topics and Discourse in Argumentation Process [78.4766663287415]
  This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness. We propose a novel neural model that is able to track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T04:27:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.