>
> Okay, so I've revealed myself as an amateur, self-educated, philosopher,
> since I confused metaphysical realism with epistemological realism.
>
> Though it may not be compatible with the received definition of
> "epistemological realism," I would amend the above to say that
> "ideas/theories have causal efficacy" _only_ if put into practice. Of
> course, ignorance (lack of ideas, theories) can also have an
> impact if put
> into practice. If epistemological realism doesn't fit with this
> conception,
> I'll go back to metaphysical realism.
No, no, you're right on target with the above. No need for the fall back
position strategy.
>
> Can't one say that the _perceived_ laws of physics are like
> ideas, whereas
> the _actual_ laws are like chairs?
Perhaps they're more like the joy we feel when greeting a loved one or
seeing something beautiful that moves us to appreciate the world despite its
tragedies.
Ian
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
