Realism, Antirealism and Naturalism AND Evolution

1

Naturalism
Realism,
Antirealism,
AND Evolution
and Implications
Expositions
2

PART I
Expositions
3
Section A Realism
4
A Brief Summary of Realism

• Realism in modern philosophy is a doctrine
  according to which ordinary objects perceived by
  senses, such as tables and chairs, have an
  existence independent of their being perceived.
• It is contrary to the idealism of philosophers
  such as George Berkeley or Immanuel Kant.
• In its extreme form, also called as full-blown
  and naïve realism, the things perceived by the
  senses are believed to be exactly what they
  appear to be. In more sophisticated versions,
  known as critical realism, a relationship between
  the object and the observer is establish in order
  to account for perceptual errors (such as
  illusion, hallucination, and sensory
  physiological degenerations)

5
What Full-Blown Scientific Realists Hold about
Science

• Scientific realism is a philosophical doctrine
  that advocates acceptance of the most secure
  findings of scientists "at the face value. and
  as the "only conceivable explanation" of
  science's predictive and manipulative successes.
• Full-Blown SR trust that both Theories and Data
  reflect or correspond to the world.

6
Support for Scientific Realism ?

• Atomic Theory
• For many centuries people envisioned an
  elementary particle atom, and were theorizing
  about atoms.
• Only recently atoms could be seen under the
  microscope and proved to correspond well to the
  more refined modern atomic theories.

7
SR and Theory of Rabbit in the Hat

• What is in the hat ?
• ???
• Clue It moves.
• Worm in the hat
• Clue Its warm
• Baby Pig in the hat
• Clue Its furry
• Cat in the hat
• Clue It has long ears
• Rabbit in the hat
• YES IT IS A RABBIT IN THE HAT !
• Scientific Realist Conclusion Good Hypothesis
  brings one closer and closer to reality, until
  the hypothesis equals the truth.

8
Section B Antirealists
9
Are all Antirealists alike ?

• No. There are those who accept data but not
  theories and they are called instrumentalists.
  Many positivists are instrumentalists.
• And there those who reject both data and facts,
  so called full-blown antirealists.

Theory Data
FB Realists Accept Accept
Global Antirealists Reject Reject
Instrumentalists Reject Accept
10
A Brief Summary of Antirealism
There are two types of antirealists
instrumentalists and global antirealists. Instrume
ntalism 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 AntirealistsA 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)
11
Global Antirealism Anti-science ?

• Ironically while moderate skepticism (like that
  of Carl Sagan one of the founders of Skeptical
  Inquire magazine) is very healthy for science.
  Extreme skepticism, instead of being extremely
  healthy, is extremely harmful to science. This is
  because by denying everything as real, anything
  can be real.
• Thus for true global antirealists there is no
  distinction on truth between modern cosmology
  and medieval church cosmology and accept any
  theories on matter of belief my intuition say
  so, traditions my bible say so or
  convenience my publisher and advertiser say
  so. Indeed global antirealists scientists are
  anti-science. And being such is as paradoxical as
  being a nihilistic ethicist.

12
What Instrumentalists Hold about Science ?

• Instrumentalists trust that only Data reflects or
  corresponds to the world.
• Theories are often useful heuristics to discover
  Data, but ultimately fictions.

13
Support for Instrumentalists Position Ether Case
Ether

• To explain how light moves through cosmos
  scientists hypothesized of a all-penetrating
  substance called ether.
• Eventually a storm created by earth as it
  frictions with ether was predicted but that
  wasn't observed and Einsteins Special Theory of
  Relativity replaced ether.
• Before ether was declared a fiction it was
  factored out in equations by physicists and the
  concept often proved useful, even if false.
• INSTRUMENTALISTS CONCLUSION Theories are just
  crutches, they help support ones walking science
  progress but can never replace legs data.

No Ether
Ether ?
14
Instrumentalists and Theory of Rabbit in the
Hat

• What is in the hat ?
• ???
• Clue It moves.
• Worm in the hat
• Clue Its warm
• Warm worm in the hat (due to heat in the room)
• Clue Its furry
• furry warm worm in the hat (due to fur in the
  hat)
• Clue It has long ears
• furry warm worm in the hat with long ears (due to
  radiation in the room).
• NO, IT IS A RABBIT, NOT A FURRY WARM WORM WITH
  long EARS IN THE HAT !
• Instrumentalists Conclusion Therefore All
  Hypothesizes and Theories are Fictional

15
Global Antirealists and Theory of the Rabbit in
the Hat

• What is in the hat ?
• ???
• Clue It moves.
• ???
• Clue Its warm
• ???
• Clue Its furry
• ???
• Clue It has long ears
• ???
• IT IS A RABBIT IN THE HAT. TAKE A LOOK!
• ???
• Global Antirealists Conclusion By being
  presented with the facts our knowledge about
  truth doesnt increase. Even seeing, does not
  mean believing.

16
Section C Naturalism
17
A Brief Summary of Naturalism

• Naturalism conceive nature as the whole of
  reality and can be understood only through
  scientific investigation.
• It denies the existence of the supernatural and
  reduces metaphysics, which studies the ultimate
  nature of reality, and theology which suggests
  design and metaphysical necessity in nature to
  little relevance.
• Since the naturalism denies a transcendent
  ultimate end for humankind (ultimate is beyond
  discovery), it suggests that values must be found
  within the social context, a form of social
  contract (which preferably is humanistic and
  utilitarian).

18

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

19
Some Myths about Naturalists

• All Naturalists are Relativists.
• Naturalists are NOT relativists Some theories
  are more coherent to and correspond better with
  current knowledge than others.              
• All Naturalists are extremely skeptical.
• Naturalists are NOT hardliner skeptics  while
  naturalists generally agree that our perception
  is not perfect, they think that with advancement
  of technology microscopes telescopes our
  perception of reality increase.
• All Naturalists are Communists/Nihilists/Social
  Darwinists
• Naturalism is a conception about scientific
  theories not economical or social theories. While
  some naturalists are communists. Some are
  nihilists. And some are Social Darwinists. Many
  are not. In fact most naturalists leave a
  fruitful and happy life as naturalistic
  conception of the world redeems one of from fear
  of afterlife retribution (and even reward, as
  Isaac Asimov putted in one of his science fiction
  novel the hope for death is what keeps me
  alive) and reconciles one with the best truth a
  human can perceive.

20
Naturalism and Theory of Rabbit in the Hat

• What is in the hat ?
• Insufficient data.
• Clue It moves.
• To the best of my knowledge it is probably a worm
  in the hat.
• Clue Its warm
• To the best of my knowledge it is probably a baby
  Pig in the hat
• Clue Its furry
• To the best of my knowledge it is probably a cat
  in the hat
• Clue It has long ears
• To the best of my knowledge it is probably a
  rabbit in the hat.
• YES IT IS A RABBIT IN THE HAT !
• Naturalist Conclusion Good Hypothesis brings one
  closer and closer to reality, until the
  hypothesis equals the truth, but until that point
  we need to maintain a doze of healthy scientific
  skepticism and make our conclusions tentative.

21

Implications
PART II
22
Realism and Evolutionary Theory

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

23
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)
24
Instrumentalism and Evolutionary Theory

• Instrumentalists are likely to reject
  macroevolution theory as real, as it can be
  observed, however accept microevolution
  (variations within species) as it was observed in
  finches and bacteria.
• However while rejecting macroevolution theory, as
  real, they will admit its usefulness for modern
  biology. they will accept the evidence that
  support. They will also accept visible evidence
  for macroevolution, as fossils of Archaeopteryx
  (some concerns might arouse among
  instrumentalists about carbon dating techniques
  used to determine age of Archaeopteryx whether
  they are theoretical or factual)

25
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)
26
Global Antirealism and Evolutionary Theory

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

27
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
28
Naturalism and Evolutionary Theory

• According to naturalism the occurrence of both
  macroevolution and microevolution is plausible.
  And we can accept theories that support evolution
  as readily as facts. However our acceptance
  should be tentative, and as we gather new
  evidence for or against evolution our theories
  should change accordingly.
• That is not to say that in the face of the facts
  Intelligent Design merits to be mentioned along
  evolution, nor could be ever a place for
  supernatural creation though if we gather enough
  evidence, which highly implausible, for alien
  creation then alien creationism can constitute
  a completive theory to evolution.

29
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
30
Conclusion
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.
31
Credits

• Lynn Hankinson Nelson
• Professor, Department of Philosophy
• University of Washington
• Microsoft Encarta 2003
• http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reali
  sm/