PART I

Section A: RealismSection A: Realism

A Brief Summary of RealismA Brief Summary of Realism Realism in modern philosophy is a doctrine Realism in modern philosophy is a doctrine

according to which ordinary objects perceived by according to which ordinary objects perceived by senses, such as tables and chairs, have an senses, such as tables and chairs, have an existence independent of their being perceived. existence independent of their being perceived.

It is contrary to the idealism of philosophers such It is contrary to the idealism of philosophers such as George Berkeley or Immanuel Kant. as George Berkeley or Immanuel Kant.

In its extreme form, also called as full-blown and In its extreme form, also called as full-blown and naïve realism, the things perceived by the senses naïve realism, the things perceived by the senses are believed to be exactly what they appear to are believed to be exactly what they appear to be. In more sophisticated versions, known as be. In more sophisticated versions, known as critical realism, a relationship between the object critical realism, a relationship between the object and the observer is establish in order to account and the observer is establish in order to account for perceptual errors (such as illusion, for perceptual errors (such as illusion, hallucination, and sensory physiological hallucination, and sensory physiological degenerations)degenerations)

What Full-Blown Scientific Realists What Full-Blown Scientific Realists Hold about Science:Hold about Science:

Scientific realism is a Scientific realism is a philosophicalphilosophical doctrine that doctrine that advocates acceptance of advocates acceptance of the most secure findings of the most secure findings of scientists "at the face scientists "at the face value.“ and as the "only value.“ and as the "only conceivable explanation" conceivable explanation" of science's predictive and of science's predictive and manipulative successes.manipulative successes.

Full-Blown SR trust that Full-Blown SR trust that bothboth Theories and Data Theories and Data reflect or correspond to the reflect or correspond to the world. world.

Support for Scientific Realism ?Support for Scientific Realism ? Atomic TheoryAtomic Theory For many centuries For many centuries

people envisioned an people envisioned an elementary particle: elementary particle: atom, and were atom, and were theorizing about atoms. theorizing about atoms.

Only recently atoms Only recently atoms could be seen under could be seen under the microscope and the microscope and proved to correspond proved to correspond well to the more well to the more refined modern atomic refined modern atomic theories.theories.

SR and Theory of “Rabbit in the SR and Theory of “Rabbit in the Hat”:Hat”:

What is in the hat ?What is in the hat ??????? Clue: It moves. Clue: It moves. Worm in the hatWorm in the hat Clue: It’s warmClue: It’s warmBaby Pig in the hatBaby Pig in the hat Clue: It’s furryClue: It’s furryCat in the hatCat in the hat Clue: It has long earsClue: It has long earsRabbit in the hatRabbit in the hat YES IT IS A RABBIT IN THE YES IT IS A RABBIT IN THE

HAT !HAT !Scientific Realist Scientific Realist

Conclusion: Good Conclusion: Good Hypothesis brings one Hypothesis brings one closer and closer to closer and closer to reality, until the reality, until the hypothesis equals the hypothesis equals the truth.truth.

Section B: AntirealistsSection B: Antirealists

Are all Antirealists alike ?Are all Antirealists alike ?

No. There are those No. There are those who accept data who accept data but not theories and but not theories and they are called they are called instrumentalists. instrumentalists. Many positivists are Many positivists are instrumentalists.instrumentalists.

And there those And there those who reject both who reject both data and facts, so data and facts, so called full-blown called full-blown antirealists.antirealists.

TheorTheoryy

DataData

FB FB RealisRealiststs

AccepAcceptt

AccepAcceptt

Global Global AntireAntirealistsalists

RejectReject RejectReject

InstruInstrumentamentalistslists

RejectReject AccepAcceptt

A Brief Summary of AntirealismA Brief Summary of AntirealismThere are two types of antirealists: instrumentalists and global antirealists.Instrumentalism:A variety of pragmatism developed at the University of Chicago by John Dewey and his colleagues. Thoughts, [spooky] ideas and theories are considered by instrumentalists as a mean to an end (way to solve difficulties and cope with new situations). And these do not bear resemblance to reality.While empirical observations do indeed provide us the accurate sense of reality.Global Antirealists:A variety of extreme skepticism. Global Antirealists deny not only the resemblance to truth of theories, but of data and observations as well. While a healthy doze of skepticism is not only important but essential for science, extreme skepticism produces no science (like in “taxes dilemma”: 0% tax rate [skepticism]: no public goods [science] as no money for public goods will be available [no one will sort among tons of rubbish to identify ounces of good science]; while 100% tax rate [skepticism] means no public goods [science] either as no one is willing to work to pay taxes [all science will be discarded and no produced])

Global Antirealism = Anti-science ?Global Antirealism = Anti-science ? Ironically while moderate Ironically while moderate

skepticism (like that of Carl skepticism (like that of Carl Sagan one of the founders of Sagan one of the founders of Skeptical Inquire magazine) is Skeptical Inquire magazine) is very healthy for science. very healthy for science. Extreme skepticism, instead of Extreme skepticism, instead of being extremely healthy, is being extremely healthy, is extremely harmful to science. extremely harmful to science. This is because by denying This is because by denying everything as “real’, anything everything as “real’, anything can be “real”. can be “real”.

Thus for “true” global Thus for “true” global antirealists there is no antirealists there is no distinction on truth between distinction on truth between “modern cosmology” and “modern cosmology” and “medieval church cosmology” “medieval church cosmology” and accept any theories on and accept any theories on matter of belief [“my intuition matter of belief [“my intuition say so”], traditions [“my bible say so”], traditions [“my bible say so”] or convenience [“my say so”] or convenience [“my publisher and advertiser say publisher and advertiser say so”]. Indeed global antirealists so”]. Indeed global antirealists scientists are anti-science. And scientists are anti-science. And being such is as paradoxical as being such is as paradoxical as being a nihilistic ethicist. being a nihilistic ethicist.

What Instrumentalists Hold about What Instrumentalists Hold about Science ?:Science ?:

Instrumentalists Instrumentalists trust that trust that onlyonly Data reflects or Data reflects or corresponds to the corresponds to the world.world.

Theories are often Theories are often useful heuristics to useful heuristics to discover Data, but discover Data, but ultimately fictions.ultimately fictions.

Support for Instrumentalists’ Support for Instrumentalists’ Position: Ether CasePosition: Ether Case

To explain how light moves To explain how light moves through cosmos scientists through cosmos scientists hypothesized of a all-penetrating hypothesized of a all-penetrating substance called ether. substance called ether.

Eventually a storm created by Eventually a storm created by earth as it frictions with ether earth as it frictions with ether was predicted but that wasn't was predicted but that wasn't observed and Einstein’s Special observed and Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity replaced Theory of Relativity replaced ether.ether.

Before ether was declared a Before ether was declared a fiction it was factored out in fiction it was factored out in equations by physicists and the equations by physicists and the concept often proved useful, concept often proved useful, even if false.even if false.

INSTRUMENTALISTS’ INSTRUMENTALISTS’ CONCLUSION: Theories are just CONCLUSION: Theories are just crutches, they help support ones crutches, they help support ones walking [science progress] but walking [science progress] but can never replace legs [data].can never replace legs [data].

Ether

No Ether

Ether ?

Instrumentalists and Theory of Instrumentalists and Theory of “Rabbit in the Hat”:“Rabbit in the Hat”:

What is in the hat ?What is in the hat ??????? Clue: It moves. Clue: It moves. Worm in the hatWorm in the hat Clue: It’s warm Clue: It’s warm Warm worm in the hat (due Warm worm in the hat (due

to heat in the room)to heat in the room) Clue: It’s furryClue: It’s furryfurry warm worm in the hat furry warm worm in the hat

(due to fur in the hat)(due to fur in the hat) Clue: It has long earsClue: It has long earsfurry warm worm in the hat furry warm worm in the hat

with long ears (due to with long ears (due to radiation in the room).radiation in the room).

NO, IT IS A RABBIT, NOT A NO, IT IS A RABBIT, NOT A FURRY WARM WORM WITH FURRY WARM WORM WITH long EARS IN THE HAT !long EARS IN THE HAT !

Instrumentalist’s Instrumentalist’s Conclusion: Therefore Conclusion: Therefore All Hypothesizes and All Hypothesizes and Theories are FictionalTheories are Fictional

Global Antirealists and Theory of Global Antirealists and Theory of the “Rabbit in the Hat”:the “Rabbit in the Hat”:

What is in the hat ?What is in the hat ??????? Clue: It moves. Clue: It moves. ?????? Clue: It’s warm Clue: It’s warm ?????? Clue: It’s furryClue: It’s furry?????? Clue: It has long earsClue: It has long ears?????? IT IS A RABBIT IN THE HAT. IT IS A RABBIT IN THE HAT.

TAKE A LOOK!TAKE A LOOK!??????Global Antirealists’ Global Antirealists’

Conclusion: By being Conclusion: By being presented with the “facts” presented with the “facts” our knowledge about truth our knowledge about truth doesn’t increase. Even doesn’t increase. Even seeing, does not mean seeing, does not mean believing.believing.

Section C: NaturalismSection C: Naturalism

A Brief Summary of NaturalismA Brief Summary of Naturalism Naturalism conceive nature as the whole of Naturalism conceive nature as the whole of

reality and can be understood only through reality and can be understood only through scientific investigation. scientific investigation.

It denies the existence of the supernatural It denies the existence of the supernatural and reduces metaphysics, which studies and reduces metaphysics, which studies the ultimate nature of reality, and theology the ultimate nature of reality, and theology which suggests design and metaphysical which suggests design and metaphysical necessity in nature to little relevance. necessity in nature to little relevance.

Since the naturalism denies a transcendent Since the naturalism denies a transcendent ultimate end for humankind (ultimate is ultimate end for humankind (ultimate is beyond discovery), it suggests that values beyond discovery), it suggests that values must be found within the social context, a must be found within the social context, a form of social contract (which preferably is form of social contract (which preferably is humanistic and utilitarian).humanistic and utilitarian).

According to naturalism realism According to naturalism realism and anti-realism miss the point and anti-realism miss the point when the conceive a dualistic when the conceive a dualistic relationship between theories on relationship between theories on one side, and "the world" on the one side, and "the world" on the other . According to naturalists, other . According to naturalists, theories are human are indeed theories are human are indeed constructions [as antirealists constructions [as antirealists suggest] but we experience the suggest] but we experience the world us through our theories [as world us through our theories [as realists suggest]. Thus it is realists suggest]. Thus it is irrelevant in comparing theories irrelevant in comparing theories to the world, as it is irrelevant in to the world, as it is irrelevant in comparing “drivers view of car” comparing “drivers view of car” with “eagle eye view of car”. (a with “eagle eye view of car”. (a driver can never be an eagle, and driver can never be an eagle, and once he/she exits the car, cease once he/she exits the car, cease to be a driver, similarly a human to be a driver, similarly a human can never have a “god eye view” can never have a “god eye view” (or “god-of-the-gaps eye view”) (or “god-of-the-gaps eye view”) and once one ceases to be a and once one ceases to be a human it cannot have any human it cannot have any perceptions at all.perceptions at all.

Some Myths about NaturalistsSome Myths about Naturalists All Naturalists are Relativists.All Naturalists are Relativists.Naturalists are NOT relativists: Some Naturalists are NOT relativists: Some

theories are more coherent to and theories are more coherent to and correspond better with current correspond better with current knowledge than others.              knowledge than others.              

All Naturalists are extremely All Naturalists are extremely skeptical.skeptical.

Naturalists are NOT “hardliner” skeptics: Naturalists are NOT “hardliner” skeptics:  while naturalists generally agree that  while naturalists generally agree that our perception is not perfect, they our perception is not perfect, they think that with advancement of think that with advancement of technology [microscopes; telescopes] technology [microscopes; telescopes] our perception of reality increase. our perception of reality increase.

All Naturalists are All Naturalists are Communists/Nihilists/Social Communists/Nihilists/Social Darwinists:Darwinists:

Naturalism is a conception about scientific Naturalism is a conception about scientific theories not economical or social theories not economical or social theories. While some naturalists are theories. While some naturalists are communists. Some are nihilists. And communists. Some are nihilists. And some are Social Darwinists. Many are some are Social Darwinists. Many are not. In fact most naturalists leave a not. In fact most naturalists leave a fruitful and happy life as naturalistic fruitful and happy life as naturalistic conception of the world redeems one conception of the world redeems one of from fear of afterlife retribution (and of from fear of afterlife retribution (and even reward, as Isaac Asimov putted even reward, as Isaac Asimov putted in one of his science fiction novel: “the in one of his science fiction novel: “the hope for death is what keeps me hope for death is what keeps me alive”) and reconciles one with the alive”) and reconciles one with the “best truth a human can perceive”.“best truth a human can perceive”.

Naturalism and Theory of “Rabbit in Naturalism and Theory of “Rabbit in the Hat”:the Hat”:

What is in the hat ?What is in the hat ?Insufficient data.Insufficient data. Clue: It moves. Clue: It moves. To the best of my knowledge To the best of my knowledge it is it is

probablyprobably a worm in the hat. a worm in the hat. Clue: It’s warmClue: It’s warmTo the best of my knowledge it is To the best of my knowledge it is

probablyprobably a baby Pig in the hata baby Pig in the hat Clue: It’s furryClue: It’s furryTo the best of my knowledge it is To the best of my knowledge it is

probablyprobably a cat in the hata cat in the hat Clue: It has long earsClue: It has long earsTo the best of my knowledge it is To the best of my knowledge it is

probablyprobably a rabbit in the hat.a rabbit in the hat. YES IT IS A RABBIT IN THE HAT !YES IT IS A RABBIT IN THE HAT !Naturalist Conclusion: Good Naturalist Conclusion: Good

Hypothesis brings one closer and Hypothesis brings one closer and closer to reality, until the closer to reality, until the hypothesis equals the truth, hypothesis equals the truth, but but until that point we need to until that point we need to maintain a doze of healthy maintain a doze of healthy scientific skepticism and make scientific skepticism and make our conclusions tentative.our conclusions tentative.

PART II

Realism and Evolutionary TheoryRealism and Evolutionary Theory

According to full-blown According to full-blown scientific realists scientific realists theories that Charles theories that Charles Darwin presented were Darwin presented were more or less accurate, more or less accurate, and in correspondence and in correspondence with reality, if not with reality, if not complete. And data that complete. And data that seems to support seems to support evolution is quite evolution is quite accurate and in accurate and in correspondence with correspondence with reality as well.reality as well.

Thus Scientific Realist Would: Thus Scientific Realist Would: Accept current classification of animal kingdom as accurate and real (matches data)Accept macroevolution as accurate and real (matches data).Accept microevolution as accurate and real. (matches data; observable)Accept English Peppered Moths as real evidence for microevolution. (observable)Accept fossils of Archaeopteryx as real evidence for macroevolution (observable)

Instrumentalism and Evolutionary Instrumentalism and Evolutionary TheoryTheory

Instrumentalists are likely to Instrumentalists are likely to reject macroevolution theory as reject macroevolution theory as real, as it can be observed, real, as it can be observed, however accept microevolution however accept microevolution (variations within species) as it (variations within species) as it was observed in finches and was observed in finches and bacteria.bacteria.

However while rejecting However while rejecting macroevolution theory, as real, macroevolution theory, as real, they will admit its usefulness for they will admit its usefulness for modern biology. they will accept modern biology. they will accept the evidence that support. They the evidence that support. They will also accept visible evidence will also accept visible evidence for macroevolution, as fossils of for macroevolution, as fossils of Archaeopteryx (some concerns might arouse among instrumentalists about carbon carbon dating techniques used to dating techniques used to determine age of determine age of Archaeopteryx: whether they are theoretical or factual)

Thus Instrumentalism Would: Thus Instrumentalism Would: Reject current classification of animal kingdom as accurate and real (unobservable)Reject macroevolution as accurate and real (unobservable)Accept microevolution as accurate and real (observable in bacteria and birds).Accept English Peppered Moths as real evidence for microevolution (observable).

Accept fossils of Archaeopteryx as real evidence for macroevolution (observable)

Global Antirealism and Evolutionary Global Antirealism and Evolutionary TheoryTheory

Global Antirealists will reject Global Antirealists will reject evolutionary theory evolutionary theory unambiguously. They will unambiguously. They will reject tenets of the theory reject tenets of the theory as well the evidence that as well the evidence that supports it. For them supports it. For them evidence are mere “Darwin evidence are mere “Darwin Icons” (or worse “devil Icons” (or worse “devil icons”) and are irrelevant on icons”) and are irrelevant on establishing truth. In fact establishing truth. In fact truth cannot be ever truth cannot be ever established (so lets us established (so lets us pray…).pray…).

Thus Global Antirealists Would: Thus Global Antirealists Would: Reject current classification of animal kingdom as accurate and real.

Reject macroevolution as accurate and real.

Reject microevolution as accurate and real (as it can be observed).Reject English Peppered Moths as real evidence for microevolution.

Accept fossils of Archaeopteryx as real evidence for macroevolution

Naturalism and Evolutionary Naturalism and Evolutionary TheoryTheory

According to naturalism the occurrence According to naturalism the occurrence of both macroevolution and of both macroevolution and microevolution is plausible. And we can microevolution is plausible. And we can accept theories that support evolution accept theories that support evolution as readily as facts. However our as readily as facts. However our acceptance should be tentative, and as acceptance should be tentative, and as we gather new evidence for or against we gather new evidence for or against evolution our theories should change evolution our theories should change accordingly.accordingly.

That is not to say that in the face of the That is not to say that in the face of the facts Intelligent Design merits to be facts Intelligent Design merits to be mentioned along evolution, nor could mentioned along evolution, nor could be ever a place for supernatural be ever a place for supernatural creation [though if we gather enough creation [though if we gather enough evidence, which highly implausible, for evidence, which highly implausible, for alien creation then “alien creationism” alien creation then “alien creationism” can constitute a completive theory to can constitute a completive theory to evolution].evolution].

Thus Naturalism Would: Thus Naturalism Would: Question current classification of animal kingdom as accurate and real (as it is likely that there would be many changes to it in the future)Tentatively Accept macroevolution as accurate and real.

Tentatively Accept microevolution as accurate and real.

Accept English Peppered Moths as real evidence for microevolution.

Accept fossils of Archaeopteryx as real evidence for macroevolution

ConclusionConclusion

Evolutionary theory seems to be better supported by the naturalistic conception of the world as it integrates harmoniously a doze of healthy skepticism from instrumentalists with a doze of acceptance or reality from realists. Plus it brings its own wise different approach to science, instead of deluding ourselves that we at look science objectively through objective senses, or deluding ourselves that we look at science subjectively through subjective senses, we should know that our senses are subjective, but nonetheless try to look at science objectively.

CreditsCredits

Lynn Hankinson NelsonProfessor, Department of Philosophy

University of Washington

Microsoft Encarta 2003

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/