Bas C. van Fraassen - Critical Realism in Science and Theology

[@longcastle4863]

After Kant, not sure how people could think we're ever going to be discussing actual objective reality -- as in _the thing in itself._ Rather, its going to be models and constructs and theories all the way down. And, personally, considering how well our scientific models work, I can't help thinking that's perfectly okay. Especially as it seems it can't be any other way.

[@fluentpiffle]

We have to actually get to truth before being able to discuss it.. Our main problem is that we assume ‘sapience’ before the event has taken place..

[@musicarroll]

Kant thought that Euclidean geometry was the actual geometry of the world. After Riemann and Einstein, he was proven wrong. And not only can models be empirically inadequate, they can also be dangerously supported by governmental force. One thinks of German "scientific models" in the 1930s and Russian models up until the late 1980s. There are also many empirically inadequate theories today that politicians are calling settled science and therefore shouldn't be questions.

[@divertissementmonas]

Good questions and good answers; great interview.

[@NYCbankersforPalestine]

Always excited for new philosophy of science videos!!

[@JustAThought01]

The foundation of human thought: There are three types of truth: that which we believe to be true, that which we know to be true, and that which we think to be true. These are the three realms of thought: religion, science and philosophy. The thought is either right or wrong. The action is either good or evil. It is evil to advance the self by exploiting others. There are only two general choices: dominate or cooperate. One leads to destruction. The other leads to a better life for all. Rather than trying to dominate, we must all work together to insure justice for all people. Do no harm except in self defense. Protect all from harm where possible.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

How does quantum field mechanics fit into realism / empiricism question and unobservables?

[@melgross]

I agree with him. I’ve been arguing this for years. It’s why the question of; “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Theists need not apply.

[@jacovawernett3077]

Really, before there was 2 there was One. Now, you explain to me how I have Prophetic visions behind my eyes, time stamp them and then watch it play out. Here's a example. The Covid Pandemic declared global on my birthday March 11th. I knew 2 years prior you didn't. Now explain it.

[@melgross]

@@jacovawernett3077 I can explain it by saying, correctly, that you’re either just making it up, or are confusing yourself. It’s easy to make statements like you did, anyone can do it. Where’s the proof? Dud you announce it somewhere we can go as see that’s reliably time stamped?

[@abelincoln8885]

You mean "Why does everything have clear & obvious Function, form, design, properties( INFORMATION) ... and Man routinely ignores the simple, clear & obvious because it doesn't support what Man believes is real & fact and complex?" smh.

[@binudinakarlal]

Thanks 👍

[@JungleJargon]

There are lots of things that are not seen by us that actually exist. Various wavelengths is a physical example. Written programming in biology is an example of what cannot possibly be from a visible physical cause. No physical thing can ever make or direct itself.

[@kos-mos1127]

The assumption that no physical thing can make or direct itself is a baseless assumption. Physical things just are and our directed under their own force that they generate.

[@FalseCogs]

@@kos-mos1127 This still assumes unnecessary separation. Outside of duality, arbitrary delineations of apparent reality are not _doing,_ but rather _being done._ Even then, there may be nothing in control at any level, unless we consider the base algorithm as "being in control", assuming "it" has a choice.

[@thomasridley8675]

Our view of reality is pretty restricted in both the micro and the macro. How many of the layers that make up our reality are forever beyond our capacity too even speculate about ? Probably more than we would like to admit.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I agree with you 100%

[@thomasridley8675]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 ,✌️

[@keithrelyea7997]

Do you read any of the current advances in basic science discovery? You toss out your thoughts like there is no quest for understanding and seem satisfied with that.

[@abelincoln8885]

BS. There are only two realities/existences: 1 Physical (Natural) where matter & energy appear to obey a set of Natural Laws. 2. Non-physical ( Unnatural) -- the realm of the MIND of an intelligence who can make the rules & Laws. Man is a physical entity ... composed of matter & energy ... & ... an intelligence. Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes rules & Laws ... and anything that has clear & obvious FUNCTION, design, purpose, form & properties. Only an intelligence ( like Man ) makes information which is non-physical, unnatural & real. Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes things in the PHYSICAL REALITY that contain INFORMATION. Only an intelligence ( Like Man) extracts INFORMATION from things of the PHYSICAL REALITY. Everything in the Universe ( Physical reality) is a Function & possesses INFORMATION that can only come from the MIND of an intelligence. The Mind of an intelligence is Unnatural & non-physical ( ie soul/spirit) ... and is real as the physical or natural existence. Chimps share 99% of Human DNA ... but the body and mind of a Chimp .. can never think or do 1% of what Man's body & Mind can do. Man's mind is both natural ( brain) & unnatural ( soul). Man is a NATURAL intelligence with a particular type of MIND, free will, nature & consciousness ... made by ... an UNNATURAL Intelligence with a particular MIND, free will, nature & consciousness. The complete Man .. is a body & soul ... and both are capable of "loving/hating" or "believe/reject" .... God( an intelligence).

[@thomasridley8675]

@@keithrelyea7997 I can't keep up on everything. I am only human. But, the major ones I do keep up on. So what discoveries were so dramatic that it would require me too change my opinion ?

[@WelkinShaman]

Who's the third "more philosophical" scientist that van Fraassen names? Mach, Planck and who?

[@nfsurr85]

Hermann Weyl?

[@WelkinShaman]

@@nfsurr85 Thank you!

[@Ekam-Sat]

Could it be so that truth is so simple that it is overlooked?

[@hckytwn3192]

His “constructive empiricism” runs into the same problem as the realist though. He says the realist aims for “truths” while science doesn’t. Is *that* true though? What actually tells you it’s true-science? (Nice paradoxical circular reasoning there). Furthermore, what is the foundation from which he’s “constructing” from? It can’t be science (science doesn’t deal in truths), so it needs to be those “unobservables” he insists can’t be proven.

[@WelkinShaman]

As far as I understand, van Fraassen thinks that the observed phenomena function as the "foundation" for construction: scientists make empirical observations and construe models and concepts that bring these observations into coherent relationships that predict further observations. Although I would personally be inclined to believe that it is customary and almost necessary for scientists to believe that their models are related to a reality outside of experience, this doesn't need to be affirmed metaphysically: belief in correspondence could be a device that guides our actual scientific thought while we are reflectively aware that our experiences and models can't be assumed to correspond to some extra-sensory reality. Your first comment would be a good rebuke to someone who thinks that there is no truth (even this person could answer by invoking a sort of metasemantics: no statements about states of affairs outside of language can be true but statements about statements can be true). However, van Fraassen doesn't seem to be saying that there is no truth: he's talking specifically about scientific statements (even though it could be that he applies this to all areas of discourse, I don't know). In addition, when van Fraassen disputes the claims of scientific realists, he seems to be talking about "truths" specifically as correspondence with an extra-sensory reality. Statements could still semantically be categorised as "true" since "truth" would be something applicable to statements themselves, not to our statements insofar as they refer to the world outside of language and perceptions.

[@jurisbogdanovs1]

I don't know why lately, for some time now, these discussions are extremely boring...

[@eewls]

so much sexual tension

[@wetyuu]

This is such important question. So many life’s depend on such a question.

[@keithrelyea7997]

What exactly is this life depended question again?

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Realism -- what is this beliefs measure based off of which denotes a degree of rationale? Realism is an erroneous belief system enirely depended upon one's own ego. Is only rational-like because one decided that it is, as there is no genuine measure. According to realism: love is not real and only imaginative as it cannot be quantified, measured, examined.

[@andreasplosky8516]

Only theistic fantasists try to obscure reality, to make their laughable theistic fantasies seem more real. You have no idea what "realism" is, nor have you any idea about the realistic knowledge of science about "love". You are just making sh*t up, like theistic fantasists always do. At this point, I might just call you out as the truth distorting liar you are.

[@kos-mos1127]

Realism does not say love is not real. Realism says the thing in itself is unobservable in principle. Science does not say love is not real. Science explains love as being caused by endorphins being released by the brain.

[@aminomar4002]

wave function collapse and conscious intervention: humans must postpone this to the next step, it is a very complex process, but it has nothing to do with so called universal consciousness, it is related to the intervention of individuals and has nothing to do with so-called imaginary universal. consciousness (consciousness type one and type two are just a part of kind of very advanced coding system works at the core level of existence "not so called universal") it has to do with consciousness type two which just a part of self concept, this is very advanced topic and too early for humans even just to think about that, right now it is better to focus on how to replace the current combustion engines with systems to generate computer controlled self synchronized momentum pads probably electromagnetism is the best candidate right now, and focus on deeper understanding of the fundamentals of physics along with connecting both subatomic level with cosmological level for deeper understanding of space. that is the only solution for mankind to make a real progress unless they insist in their irrational hallucinations and keeping mankind as a kind of apes.

[@r2c3]

really curious to see what the choice of an AI oracle would be... what if, it comes up with a better model than we currently have :) that's going to be the end of our thinking, all together 🎭

[@musicarroll]

I wouldn't jump to thar conclusion. Rather than an end, it might just as well be the beginning of an AI-Human dialog directed towards improving our models.

[@r2c3]

@@musicarroll an advanced intelligent system will, at least, be free of subjectivity... there's no surprise there... who knows though :)

[@musicarroll]

@r2c3 Intelligent agents do not have subjectivity of their own, but they do implement the subjectivity of whoever trained them, whether the human trainers are aware of their own subjectivity/assumptions or not. That's encoded in the reward function upon which the agent is trained.

[@r2c3]

@@musicarroll once an agent 'matures' it will certainly aim for independence and progress... at that point, any subjectivity will have an extra weight/cost in comparison to the best alternative... what I don't know is, if it will choose to diversify at one point, or not... and if yes, at what scale will that diversification be implemented...

[@youaresomeone3413]

I believe our consciousness is already programmed by the way we lived in our very first pure free willed life and now we are just reliving what we've once already created.

[@thomasridley8675]

So just a twist on reincarnation ? And what does "our first pure free will life" even mean ?

[@keithrelyea7997]

Please explain this without benefit of whatever it is you are.

[@jackieswan422]

Reincarnation that is what we are, recycle after recycling process and previous lives

[@thomasridley8675]

@@jackieswan422 What is the goal ? It can't be an endless cycle. Actually, that makes less sense than regular reincarnation. And that's saying a lot. The only thing special about us is that we just happen to be the last survivor on the line of upright walking apes. Are you going to say that we might have gotten some of our souls from neanderthals ? That might explain Ted Cruz. Na, he is a totally different species.

[@abelincoln8885]

There are only two realities/existence: 1. Physical (Natural) -- domain of natural phenomena & the Laws of Nature. 2. Non-physical ( Unnatural ) -- domain of the Mind of an Intelligence & unnatural laws. Man is a natural phenomena ( physically real) but also has the Mind of an intelligence ( non-physically real). Thoughts, beliefs, knowledge are non-physical & real .. and from the mind of an intelligence. What Man thinks & believes doesn't change the reality of the Physical existence. The physical is the core reality for Man ... who has a physical body ... and the mind of an intelligence which is unnatural & nonphysical( ie soul/spirit).

[@FalseCogs]

By _physical_ and _non-physical,_ do you mean _noumenon_ and _phenomenon,_ or something else?

[@abelincoln8885]

@@FalseCogs All natural phenomena involve matter & energy which are a core part of the physical reality. The Unnatural reality has no matter or energy, no laws of Nature but is the realm where law, information, knowledge .... exist. Man & Animals are physical entities ... with a body composed of matter & energy .... and a mind that is clearly the brain. But mind of Man is clearly more than just the brain. Again. Chimps share 99% of Human DNA ... and yet a Chimps body & mind(brain) can no think or do 1% of what Man's body & MIND can do. Man is a physical Entity and an Intelligence with a mind that is more than a physical brain. Man has the mind of an intelligence which is more than the brain. Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes, maintains, improves, operates fine tunes .. abstract & physical Functions. Anything that has clear & obvious purpose, design, form, processes, and properties( ie INFORMATION) .... is a Function ... and can only be made by an intelligence ( like Man). Everything in the Universe ... is a Function ... and information .... that can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence( like Man). The Universe & Life was UNNATURALLY made by an intelligence ( like Man). The Mind of an Intelligence is UNNATURAL & non physical. And this is why the Mind of Man ... is natural (brain) & unnatural ( soul/spirit). A complete Man ... is body & soul... for the mind of Man is both physical & non-physical. And God did create the Universe & Life less than 6 000 years ago ... and Jesus is God's Son who will return to rule for 1000 years before Judgement Day. God had a reason for the 6 day creation & the 7th Day is for God, and saying 1 day is like 1000 years. The current Jewish year since Creation is 5782. We have a 7 day week because God knew it would take 7 x 1000 years for the last Believer to be pro-Created by Man. And then God will judged all who rejected Him.

[@FalseCogs]

@@abelincoln8885 There are a lot of assertions given. This reply will focus on a couple. Imagine a hypothetical object or material, with no inherent purpose or function. Could not an intelligent agent come along and _assign_ a purpose to this otherwise meaningless thing? Even if the known universe _were_ created with intent by an intelligent agent, what is to say that agent is itself _unnatural?_ What prevents something natural from creating? What is the meaning of "natural" here?

[@abelincoln8885]

@@FalseCogs "Natural" & Physical refers to anything of this Universe that is space, time, Laws o Nature, matter & energy. Science completely relies on the Laws of NATURE ... for Man to explain ... NATURAL phenomena. Man & Animals are Natural or Physical entities with a mind, free will, a nature & an consciousness ... of the Physical or Natural existence. But Man is a NATURAL intelligence and therefore has a MIND that is natural ( brain) & unnatural ( soul/spirit). Again. The Mind of an Intelligence is UNNATURAL & non-physical ( soul/spirit) because everything in the Universe, including Man are Functions ... with clear & obvious purpose, design, form, processes & properties( INFORMATION). Everything possesses & requires INFORMATION to exist & to function. There is nothing that doesn't have purpose, design, form, properties. Carbon, hydrogen & Oxygen can not exist & function without protons, electrons & neutrons and likewise without elemental particles. Everything being Functions is classical "newtonian" physics as this fully explains Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. Man has known for thousands of years that only an intelligence ( like Man) makes rules & Laws ( of nature) and things ( of the Universe) with clear purpose, form, design & function. There is no excuse for Man to ignore a simple fact that nature & natural processes can never make & operate the simplest machine, always compare life to machines, acknowledge the molecular machines are life, and yet claim it is a fact of science that Life has a natural origin 4 billion years ago, & evolved to the complex life today. BS.

[@fieldandstream9362]

🤔

[@patmat.]

As usual with phylosophers, they always slip in some unexplained verbiage at the critical point of their pseudo-explaination.

[@WelkinShaman]

What part didn't you get? I thought van Fraassen's manner of speaking was extremely lucid. Perhaps you're mistaking your own lack of understanding for a fault on van Fraassen's part?

[@patmat.]

​@@WelkinShaman e.g. : 3:35, 4:23, etc... ask me what part I got instead. It's a common trait of "human sciences", to make things sound more complex than they are, sometimes it's purely makeup.

[@WelkinShaman]

@@patmat. 3:35 has to do with a central tension that the critical realist (forgot the name) saw in Aristotle's views on scientific reasoning, namely that Aristotle's views on epistemology (what counts as knowledge) admit only of sensory perceptions and generalizations based on those, while Aristotle seems to need to rely on unobservables in his science. If you're confused about "Posterior Analytics", that's the name of one of Aristotle's books. 4:23 is merely a way of saying that realists think that having to postulate the existence of certain scientific entities (beings) is a valid ground for thinking of these entities as existing in reality, that is to say, not merely as theoretical objects, devices or constructs. An antirealist would deny this and hold that having to postulate scientific entities isn't a valid ground for assuming that these beings exist outside of theoretical frameworks. This "sometimes it's purely makeup" view seems to come from people who aren't well-versed in philosophy. It's analogous to a physical illiterate walking into a seminar on physics and getting frustrated with the fact that they can't understand what is being talked about. Every scholarly field has their own vocabularies and assuming that you could just jump into discussions and understand everything borders on arrogance. I had no trouble understanding what was being talked about. Why? Because I've studied academic philosophy for 7 years and the vocabulary that van Fraassen employs is fairly typical within contemporary philosophical discussions. You can view the way philosophers talk as posturing: I think of it as specialists employing condensed language to communicate complex notions efficiently. EDIT: Grammar

[@Al-ji4gd]

@@patmat. You have no idea what you'e talking about. It's better to not say anything when you don't know anything about the topic at hand especially when criticizing a behemoth like Van Fraassen.

[@JustAThought01]

The only thing the self can know for sure is that the self exist. All information which the self has to think about is provided by the human senses. All other knowledge is based upon a set of assumptions. The Key Assumptions is: The world we are meant to understand is delivered by our senses.

[@keithrelyea7997]

So where does this lead this discussion?

[@JustAThought01]

@@keithrelyea7997, the attempt is to fund the simplest answers to our questions. Some questions just do not have provable answers with our current level of information. So, establish a set of assumptions for questions without provable answers and make rational analysis based upon those assumptions. We must accept that our reality is bounded by the unknown and make the best possible choices based upon the provable and those simplifying assumptions.

[@abelincoln8885]

There are only two realities/existences: 1. Physical ( Natural) - where matter & energy obey the Laws of Nature 2. Non-physical ( Unnatural) -- realm of the Mind of an Intelligence which has no Laws of Nature. Consciousness, free will, & nature .. are functions of the MIND of an entity. Animals & Man .. are physical ( Natural) entities with the a physical mind ( brain) and their own type of free will, nature & consciousness of the Physical ( Natural) environment. But Man also has the Mind of an Intelligence and can create information that is non-physical & real, and can extract information for the physical ( natural) reality. The Mind of Man is natural ( brain) & unnatural ( soul). The physical or natural reality ..... does not change ... whoever Man thinks, believes or senses. Man is a physical entity ... so the physical or Natural is real, not matter what man thinks of it.

[@FalseCogs]

This assumption takes the seat of the animal. But if one takes the seat of God, perhaps "we" are "meant" to understand more. Since thoughts, emotions, and internal feedback happen too, might as well explore them as well. Happenings need not be limited to assumptions of intent. There is no need to draw only within the lines.

[@rajendratayya8400]

(1) The universe is originally something out of nothing, trans-production. (2) If that is possible then there can also be a hidden universe, trans-coordination. (3) Therefore, the nature of life is trans-conduction.

[@peterburandt4586]

Science and Theology in one sentence? Hard pass, thank you.

[@chayanbosu3293]

Lord Krishna says our existence consist of 3 levels 1Gross body 2.subtle body i.e mind, body and intellect 3.Soul.Now conciousness emarges from soul and mind is the interface between outer world and soul.

[@keithrelyea7997]

Look where this has gotten India in trems of enlightenment. What a waste of humanity.

[@chayanbosu3293]

@@keithrelyea7997 We are not our body , we are not our mind so the result is we are not programmed machine all we have free will but it's limited so we have to harmonize our free will to God's will , this is best gift to humanity.

[@JungleJargon]

There are lots of things that are not seen by us that actually exist. Various wavelengths is a physical example. Written programming in biology is an example of what cannot possibly be from a visible physical cause. No physical thing can ever make or direct itself.

[@thomasridley8675]

Take the random interactions of physics, chemistry and biology, add billions of yrs and here we are. No designed direction or ultimate goal is evident in those interactions.

[@JungleJargon]

@@thomasridley8675 You don’t understand what biology is.

[@thomasridley8675]

@@JungleJargon Holy Sweet Jesus Farts !! With what is on your channel I have too question if you know anything at all. The mix of religious nonsense and idiotic right wing politics makes me question your hold on reality.

[@keithrelyea7997]

What do you mean by that? You have lots of space. Put it out so all can witness your insights.

[@JungleJargon]

@@keithrelyea7997 Genetic programming can't write itself.