Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Philosophy Entity Realism Entity Realism Introduction to Philosophy of Science The truth about scientific unobservables has been argued about from two distinct sides, realists and anti-realists. I will argue that entity realism is the best way to show that entities exist. The scientific anti-realist believes that there is a difference between unobservable and observable entities. They believe that because there is no concrete evidence of unobservable entities and events, theories should not be taken to be true. This does not mean that anti-realists do not take all scientific theories to be false, but that they should only be considered empirically adequate. A theory is believed to be empirically adequate when observable entities and events are found to be true. The scientific realist believes that there is no difference between unobservable and observable; therefore no line should be drawn between the two. Many people who are not very familiar with science usually take the naïve realist position. This is the position in which they do not attempt to distinguish observable from unobservable. The naïve realist also does not attempt to distinguish observational terms from theoretical terms. Observational terms are terms that explain observable entities and events that occur in scientific experimentation. Some examples of observational terms could be human body parts and an automobile moving. Theoretical terms are terms that can not be directly viewed through the naked eye. Some examples of theoretical terms are force and velocity. Realists believe that theoretical terms are proven to be true by observational terms. The naïve realist is able to justify their position because of the Argument from Success. People are driven towards realism because of the success of science. They do not believe that science could be successful without having theories that are true. How could science be so successful if scientific theories are only deemed empirically adequate? • Science aims to give us theories which are empirically adequate; and acceptance of a theory involves as belief only that it is empirically adequate • Science should only claim to be empirically adequate • Theoretical terms should only be taken to be empirically adequate Bas van Fraassen is an anti-realist who believes that there is no strong truth to science, only empirical adequacy. Van Fraassen states that scientific realists believe that the purpose of scientific theory construction is to give us a literally true story of what the world is like, so that when a scientific theory is accepted, it is believed to be true. The anti-realist believes that the aim of science can be well served without giving such a literally true story, and accepting a theory may not necessarily be committing to the truth of a theory. Van Fraassen believes that the language of science should be literally construed, but the theories do not have to be good to be true. He states that if a theory says that something exists, then it may be elaborated on what that something is, but it will not rule out existence. By stating that science should be literally construed, theories are able to explain other things without directly explaining them in the theory. Since the language of science is taken to be literal, good theories do not have to be taken to be true, nor do the entities involved in the theories have to be taken to be real. Van Fraassen believes that acceptance of theories involves more than belief, because we are never confronted with a complete theory. When a scientist accepts a theory he is basically put into a research program. By accepting a certain theory, the scientist will have to attempt to keep his beliefs separate from other equivalent theories. The scientist will not have to believe that the theory is true, only that it is the most adequate theory based on their beliefs of that theoretical category. The acceptance that a theory is the best in it’s area, the scientist believes that the theories theoretical terms are the best in the theory’s area, not that they are true. Grover Maxwell is a realist who believes that there is no difference between theoretical and non-theoretical language, and also between observable and unobservable entities. Maxwell believes that theoretical terms are essential to essential to everyday language and that the much of the way that we talk has been guided through previously accepted theories. People do not necessarily believe in theories, though, just because they talk of them. Van Fraassen attempts to draw a line between observing and observing that. Conceptual awareness is needed to observe something. Information cannot only be obtained through perception, something about what is being observed has to be learned. Maxwell also contends that there is no difference between observing something through a window, observing something through glasses, observing something through a telescope, and observing something through a high-powered microscope. Van Fraassen contends that there is a difference because the first three examples and the last example. The window could be lifted up and the object viewed with the naked eye in the first example. The objects in the second and third example could be viewed with the naked eye if the observer were able to move closer to them. While in the last example the objects are only deemed to be detectable because they can only be seen through something that aids the naked eye. Therefore, the terms deemed “observable” are examples of vague predicates involved in theories. There are vague predicates that occur in theories that allow for no distinction to be drawn. When is a man believed to be bald? When is touching a family member deemed immoral? Suppose a man has a full head of hair, he is not considered bald then, A hair is removed, but he is still not considered bald. The rest only differs by degree. A vague predicate is said to be usable when it has clear cases and counter-cases. Van Fraassen believes that there is a true counter-case to observable terms. He uses an example of charged particle in a saturated environment. The charged particles path is marked by droplets on the ions. A jet’s vapor trail looks similar to this. How are we to distinguish between the two examples that look alike? Maxwell also attempts to say that everything could be observable at some time. He believes that something is never unobservable because at any time something could happen to make it observable, for example electron-microscope eyes. Van Fraassen combats this argument by saying that the human organism is basically a measuring apparatus. Humans have certain limitations that will keep them from doing certain things. He states that, “It is these limitations to which the ‘able’ in ‘observable’ refers – our limitations, qua human beings. (271)” • Anti-Realist Argument from Underdetermination 1. Only believe one theory T is true, over another theory T*, if you have more evidence for the truth of T than T*. 2. The only evidence we have to support the truth of theories based on theoretical terms are observations. 3. Our observations underdetermine which theory based on theoretical terms is true. C. We should never believe any theory based on theoretical Van Fraassen questions whether we should believe that our theories about unobservables are true because of the Argument from Underdetermination. The anti-realist believes that the only way to support the truth of theories based on theoretical terms are observations. If two differing theories based on the same observations lead to different theoretical terms, the observations underdetermine which theory based on theoretical terms is true. Which theoretical term is true if the same observations lead to different theoretical terms. Therefore we should never believe any theory based on theoretical terms to be true. A realist philosopher, Putnam, believes that realism is the only philosophy that does not make the success of science a miracle. He believes that the theories accepted in science are typically approximately true and that the same term can refer to the same thing even when it occurs in different theories. Statements are not necessarily viewed by realists as true, but only as part of the only explanation of the success of science. Then Putnam obviously believes that science must explain it’s own success. This argument is similar to the argument of another realist, Smart. Smart believes that the truth of science cannot be explained through cosmic coincidences or lucky accidents. Therefore, regularities in the observable phenomena must be explained in terms of deeper structure, otherwise the science could only be explained as accidents. Van Fraassen responds to Putnam and Smart with a Darwinian response. He uses the example of a cat and mouse, and why the mouse runs away from the cat. Van Fraassen says not to believe that the mouse runs away from the cat because the mouse perceives the cat as an enemy. Darwinists believe that species who did not cope with their enemies no longer exist. The mouse does not run because it perceives the cat as an enemy, the mouse just naturally runs from the cat and it has a chance at survival. In the same way, the success of science is not just coincidence or a miracle. Scientific theories that are created, face competition from other similar theories. Therefore only the strongest theories survive, which are the theories that comply with natural regularities. -* -* -*-* TRANSDUCER -*-*MODULE-*-* Finally, Beliefs and Memories Formed -* -* -*TRANSDUCER-*MODULE-* Finally, Beliefs and Memories Formed Paul 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 for the theory must be true. This means that all observable things have to be true, things from the past, things in the future, and things in different far away galaxies. Churchland believes that by van Fraassen claiming this, he is underdetermining all observable objects and events. The objects or events could be different from what they were in the past, they could be different in the future, and they may be different on another planet that we have not discovered. Churchland believes that anti-realists are cowards for not taking a chance to further their beliefs. He says, “One might decide to relinquish all one’s beliefs save those about objects weighing less than 500 kg, and perhaps one would then be logically safer. But in the absence of some relevant epistemic difference between one’s beliefs about other objects, this is perversity, not parsimony. (276)” • Pessimistic Meta-Induction – Theories from earlier times have been abandoned, what is to stop the theories of today from being proven false in the future. The pessimistic meta-induction argument is an attempt by non-realists to keep all theories from being called true. This is the argument that previous theories have eventually been found untrue, so what is to keep our theories of today from being found not to be true. A response to that argument could be that we have become so technically advanced that our theories are much stronger and the only way for our theories to be abandoned would be if another technological revolution occurred. • Skeptical Underdetermination Argument 1. Only believe one theory T is true, over another theory T*, if you have more evidence for the truth of T than T*. 2. The only evidence to support the truth of ANY theory, based on observation or theoretical terms, is perceptual experience 3. Our perceptual experiences underdetermine the truth of all theories, for example the Demon or ordinary object could be true C. Never take any theory to be true Anti-realists are not the only group who believe that theories cannot be labeled as true. Skeptics also believe that there is never enough evidence to support the truth of a theory. The two groups do agree with each other that a theory can only be believed over another theory if one has more evidence than the other. But while anti-realists believe that observables can cause a theory to be empirically adequate, skeptics do not trust observables. They believe that what someone views is actually there to see, but they also believe that there could be a demon that is stimulating your brain to make you see and do things. Arthur Fine is a skeptic who does agree that there are “true” theories. Though Fine’s definition of “true” is that it accounts for perceptual experience, observation and other evidence. Fine does not believe that we can get “true” theories, where truth is correspondence. But he also believes that we do have “true” theories. Therefore, we must conclude that “truth” is not correspondence. Fine and other skeptics have made arguments that continually contradict each other and they have made skepticism almost completely unbelievable. Skeptics can be placed into two different categories. The first category is the skeptic who should just sit in the corner of a room and never do anything, because they believe that a demon is controlling their brain and that nothing is as it seems. The second category is the skeptic who wanders around aimlessly because they feel they cannot trust their own perception. They do not know whether to trust anything because it could be real, or it could be the demon stimulating their brain, but they do not know which is which. Theoretical realism is surely not the best way to describe the truth of theories either. For a conjunctive theory to be true, all the parts have to be true. For a theory to be true there cannot even be the smallest bit of doubt, in the smallest bit of information which is part of the theory. The problem with theories is they attempt to claim too much. There is too much room for error in theories for them to be considered true. I agree with Ian Hacking who is an Entity Realist. Entity realists believe in things, but not theories. The entity realist believes that you should believe in the existence of an entity ‘E’ referred to by a term ‘E’ just in case our understanding of ‘E’ allows to successfully construct instruments that manipulate and use the world in a variety of diverse contexts and structures. Entity realists do not believe that entities are true because there is no clear definition of true. Anti-realists have no argument against entity realists, because entity realism attempts to shoot down theories. Bibliography: Word Count: 2672
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.