Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
realism/instrumentalism ?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Renato
Mar 1, 1994, 5:46:00 PM3/1/94
to
I have a question concerning scientific realism vs. scientific
instrumentalism. As I currently understand the issues involved
scientific realism sums up the pursuit of science as a search for
abstract truth where the items of scientific research and objects of
scientific theory are considered real objects. That is, even though one
can never directly perceive an atom or a magnetic field they are
considered to genuinely exist in an absolute sense. The scientific
instrumentalist, however, would contend that these sorts of
unperceptable things are not absolutely real, but rather abstractions
concocted to provide a relatively simple means of discussing what would
otherwise be virtually impossibly complex interactions between
perceptable objects. That is the scientific instrumentlist would hold
that while an atomic theory has great explanitory power and is
conveniently instrumental in making accurate predictions as to the
behavior of perceptable objects, such a theory does not predicate that
atom necessarily exist as real things.
Given the respective treatments of Galt the pragmatic industrial
engineer, and his science teacher the (corrupted) "pure" reseach
scientist, in _Atlas Shrugged_ as well as other snippets of Rand's
writings I'm inclined to believe that Rand tended to the scientific
instrumentalist side of the argument for the sake of its
anthropocentrism (after all, does it matter whether a theory postulates
104, 1004, or just plain 4 elements as long as it is adequite to
producing functional technology such as "Rearden Metal" or "Galt's
Engine"?).
Similarly, the resistance of Objectivists (or should I say "Blueshirts"
;-) ?) to the metaphysical problems involved with some subatomic
theories and certain higher mathematics, based on the notion that
philosophy is more "psychoepistemologically" basic than science points
in the same direction. (Since these topics are old hat in a.p.o. there
isn't much need to drag up the specifics of these arguments at this
point.)
(BTW given the "Blueshirt"/Randoid/O. vs o. problem I've come to
denominate my metaphysical standpoint as "externalist" to distinguish
myself from subjectivists, skeptics, and solipsists while avoiding the
stigma attached to the term "objectivist" whatever the capitalisation.
For those of you (Larry, "Conan", et al.) who know this problem well, I
recommend and encourage you to make use of the term "externalism/ist"
for the sake of clarity)
instrumentalism. As I currently understand the issues involved
scientific realism sums up the pursuit of science as a search for
abstract truth where the items of scientific research and objects of
scientific theory are considered real objects. That is, even though one
can never directly perceive an atom or a magnetic field they are
considered to genuinely exist in an absolute sense. The scientific
instrumentalist, however, would contend that these sorts of
unperceptable things are not absolutely real, but rather abstractions
concocted to provide a relatively simple means of discussing what would
otherwise be virtually impossibly complex interactions between
perceptable objects. That is the scientific instrumentlist would hold
that while an atomic theory has great explanitory power and is
conveniently instrumental in making accurate predictions as to the
behavior of perceptable objects, such a theory does not predicate that
atom necessarily exist as real things.
Given the respective treatments of Galt the pragmatic industrial
engineer, and his science teacher the (corrupted) "pure" reseach
scientist, in _Atlas Shrugged_ as well as other snippets of Rand's
writings I'm inclined to believe that Rand tended to the scientific
instrumentalist side of the argument for the sake of its
anthropocentrism (after all, does it matter whether a theory postulates
104, 1004, or just plain 4 elements as long as it is adequite to
producing functional technology such as "Rearden Metal" or "Galt's
Engine"?).
Similarly, the resistance of Objectivists (or should I say "Blueshirts"
;-) ?) to the metaphysical problems involved with some subatomic
theories and certain higher mathematics, based on the notion that
philosophy is more "psychoepistemologically" basic than science points
in the same direction. (Since these topics are old hat in a.p.o. there
isn't much need to drag up the specifics of these arguments at this
point.)
(BTW given the "Blueshirt"/Randoid/O. vs o. problem I've come to
denominate my metaphysical standpoint as "externalist" to distinguish
myself from subjectivists, skeptics, and solipsists while avoiding the
stigma attached to the term "objectivist" whatever the capitalisation.
For those of you (Larry, "Conan", et al.) who know this problem well, I
recommend and encourage you to make use of the term "externalism/ist"
for the sake of clarity)
Michael R. Barrick
(Ren...@compdyn.com)
(bar...@sfu.ca)
* RM 1.0 01500 *
----
COMPUTER DYNAMICS compdyn.com V32-604-255-9937
Sysop 24 hours HST-604-986-9937
Al Mellis Email/News/Files 24 Hours
If it ain't broken, keep playing with it..........................
0 new messages