Finally, Beliefs and Memories FormedPaul Churchland is a realist who responds to van Fraassen claim that we cannot trust theoretical terms that deal with “unobservables.” Churchland argues that there is no difference between what is deemed observable and unobservable. The same method is used to view objects whether they are observable, or so-called unobservable. If someone views an object, like a tree, that image enters the eye and passes through the eye to the transducer. The image then passes through the module and an image is formed in the brain. Memories and beliefs are then formed, for example, “I believe I am looking at a tree.” The same process is followed when a scientist looks at a cell, only an instrument is used that bends light and magnifies the object so it is easily viewed. This process is as follows, light and lenses are used to magnify the object and the objects image passes through the microscope. The image enters the eye and passes through the eye to the transducer. The image then passes through the module and an image is formed in the brain. Memories and beliefs are then formed, for example, “I believe I am looking at a cell.” There is no difference in the method of viewing what anti-realists call observable objects and unobservable objects, except for the use of a sophisticated instrument. The anti-realist may say that it is not the same because an outside instrument has to be used to view unobservable, and it is not part of the human body. Suppose someone underwent surgery to physically attach a microscope to one or both of their eyes. The microscope has now become part of the person’s body and microscopic objects are no longer unobservable to the person.Churchland also responds to van Fraassen’s explanation of empirical adequacy. Van Fraassen believes that for something to be empirically adequate, the observable information f...
