but in my experience most scientists do Boyd's 'tropical fish realism'. / Archytas.....
I'd like look into this Boyd "character".....what's his full name... R.N. Boyd? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/ and is this, "roughly"..... your view of 'tropical fish realism'? On Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, lenor...@pipeline.com Ornstein wrote: > > *The Skeptical Scientific Mind-Set in the Spectrum of Belief: It’s about > models of ‘reality’ – and the unavoidable incompleteness of evidence, for – > or against – any model or fact. > * > Leonard Ornstein > > *Abstract * > > This essay examines topics that relate to the origins of beliefs, in > general – and particularly, to ‘belief-in’ the sciences – and how beliefs > impact our ability to cope with real-world problems: > > Introspection about personal experiences of the external world, using > the ‘images’ created by our sense organs (especially our vision) should > convince us that we are usually aware of a great more detail than our > finite vocabularies of words and symbols equip us to manage. So all models > (stories/speculations/hypotheses/theories/laws) that we construct to > communicate meaning about those experiences must be caricatures of a richer > and more complex private set of conscious and unconscious images and > impressions. As a result, at best, we can only build stripped-down, > verbal/symbolic sketches about the world. These can hardly be expected to > be complete models of absolute and (final?) ‘truth’. > > Communication between individuals and groups likely developed as a means > to, on average, increase the quality of life (the probability of survival, > safety, convenience and comfort) compared to ‘going it alone’. For each of > the communicating partners, the meanings of those communications had to be > believed to be the ‘same’ to try to maximize the fulfillment of such > intentions. Therefore, the voiced-words/symbols/codes, and the fundamental > rules for their use, needed to be arbitrarily agreed upon to ‘assure’ > identical intended meanings. This is exactly the function of axiomatic > definitions and rules at the roots of model building for languages, for > mathematics and for logic. The qualifications and limitations that apply to > languages, math and logic must be very similar to those for building models > for all systems of belief (ideologies, religions and science). Deductive > reasoning and inductive reasoning are the tools used to examine the > consequences of the axiomatics. How axiomatics and reason might fail to > lead us to ‘truth' and certainty about models therefore also requires > understanding of inherent limitations imposed on both deductive and > inductive reasoning. > > Sciences differ from ideologies, from most mathematics and from > religions. The latter require undiluted, absolute faith/belief in the > ‘truth’ of their axiomatics. However, science accepts (also axiomatically) > that the degree-of-belief/confidence-in its models can never be absolute. > The degree-of-belief is measured by how strongly pertinent, empirical > evidence – developed through repeated observation and ‘testing’, and always > limited by uncertainties of inductive reasoning, confirm the > predictions/projections of the models. > > Such degrees-of-belief are analogue (expressed quantitatively, as > ‘different shades of grey’) rather than digital [expressed as black and > white (false or true)]. Scientific models of observable phenomena (objects > and processes), provide simpler and more reliable explanations than those > of non-scientific disciplines and ideologies. Ockham’s Razor – the dictum > to choose the simplest explanation, all other things being equal – > therefore generally recommends placing scientific models ahead of ideologic > models of observable phenomena. > > These differences are sources of science’s great potential to self-correct > – and with ever increasing confidence – to incrementally (though often > sporadically) improve quality of life. > > > In teaching, and in the general valuation of science, these topics, and > their contributions to improving the quality of life, are increasingly > neglected. They are explored to better clarify how > science fits into the wide spectrum of beliefs – (and perhaps help reverse > this disturbing trend ;-) > > http://www.pipeline.com/~lenornst/ScienceInTheSpectrumOfBelief.pdf > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/eIAbO3kcMU8J. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
