Talk:Scientific realism: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
PierreWiki (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I've done my best to make this article clear and accessible, but as a professional in this field it's often distinguish clear and accessible from technical and jargon-laden. Please, if there is anything in this article that you find makes it a less than helpful introduction, please ask here and I will do my best to edit the article to make it better. [[User:philosofool|philosofool]] |
I've done my best to make this article clear and accessible, but as a professional in this field it's often distinguish clear and accessible from technical and jargon-laden. Please, if there is anything in this article that you find makes it a less than helpful introduction, please ask here and I will do my best to edit the article to make it better. [[User:philosofool|philosofool]] |
||
I reckon it is good, though since I'm also working in the field, I may not be the ideal reader. Then again, who is going to look at a section like this - it is hardly general interest? I've made an addition to the end of the bit on underdetermination, which I am writing on at present. What do you think?[[User:Thonemann|Thonemann]] 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
I reckon it is good, though since I'm also working in the field, I may not be the ideal reader. Then again, who is going to look at a section like this - it is hardly general interest? I've made an addition to the end of the bit on underdetermination, which I am writing on at present. What do you think?[[User:Thonemann|Thonemann]] 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
||
*I'm presently reading some books in order to get a comprehensive idea of the history of the philosophy of science and I must say that one of the most obscure concept I had to understand have been realism. I understand now that realists think that unobserved scientific concepts like atom, mass or force reflect real things... And that instrumentalist think that these concepts are just instruments to understand reality. Unfortunately this article was of no help in making me understand this. I suggest giving some examples of unobserved concept and making a clear distintion between realism and the opposite views. [[User:PierreWiki|PierreWiki]] 14:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Realism and Modelling== |
==Realism and Modelling== |
||
Revision as of 14:36, 6 January 2007
Requests for Clarification?
I've done my best to make this article clear and accessible, but as a professional in this field it's often distinguish clear and accessible from technical and jargon-laden. Please, if there is anything in this article that you find makes it a less than helpful introduction, please ask here and I will do my best to edit the article to make it better. philosofool I reckon it is good, though since I'm also working in the field, I may not be the ideal reader. Then again, who is going to look at a section like this - it is hardly general interest? I've made an addition to the end of the bit on underdetermination, which I am writing on at present. What do you think?Thonemann 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm presently reading some books in order to get a comprehensive idea of the history of the philosophy of science and I must say that one of the most obscure concept I had to understand have been realism. I understand now that realists think that unobserved scientific concepts like atom, mass or force reflect real things... And that instrumentalist think that these concepts are just instruments to understand reality. Unfortunately this article was of no help in making me understand this. I suggest giving some examples of unobserved concept and making a clear distintion between realism and the opposite views. PierreWiki 14:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Realism and Modelling
To what extent is realism compatible with modelling?
- I'm unsure what you mean by "modelling" here. "Modelling" sounds like something that is a matter of scientific methodology rather than the realism/anti-realism debate. By no means are questions of method and questions realism/anti-realism fully independent; however, most methodological issues can be accomodated by most interpretations of science. If you can say more about modelling, perhaps I can give a more complete response.philosofool
Caloric Theory
I moved a section from caloric theory to this page, as it is irrelevant there. Could someone who works in this field either merge it into the article properly, or remove it altogether? -- Wijnand 08:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Paradigm Shift
Is pessimistic induction supported by Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts, and if so how do scientific realists counter this? 62.249.242.232 07:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)