Truth: Realism and Antirealism - Epistemology Video 28
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 05. 2024
- This is video 28 in an introductory course on epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge. In this video, we talk about truth. Specifically, we discuss the difference between realism about truth (in a domain) and anti-realism about truth (in a domain). One purpose of the video is to explain that the anti-realist is not in any sense opposed to truth; rather, the realist and the anti-realist have a different conception of the relation between our standards for inquiry and the truths that we uncover in inquiry.
Victor Gijsbers teaches philosophy at Leiden University in the Netherlands. You can follow him on mastodon: @victorgijsbers@mastodon.gamedev.place.
This video is part of a lecture series originally recorded for my students during the 2023/2024 spring semester. The entire playlist is here: • Course in Epistemology - Hry
In terms of mathematical reality, I imagine it could be possible to show that some conjectures are inherently unprovable, so that this could be a feature of the reality.
For physical realism, I guess that realists are unlikely to accept the hypothesis that a do-nothing-on does in fact do nothing, while the anti-realist will advance the hypothesis as an idea to undermine realism. I am not sure that is effective though because, it is hard to see what kind of norm or norms a do-nothing-on could arise from.
Sir, would you please suggest some essential readings in this topic? I am interested to know further about the debate.
One article I recommend in Rorty's "Solidarity or Objectivity", which defends the anti-realist side. Thomas Nagel's "The Last Word" can be read as defending realism. I believe Michael Dummett has also written about this topic. This blog post of mine might also be of interest to you: lilith.cc/~victor/dagboek/index.php/2022/10/11/anti-realism-and-the-decline-of-truth/
@@VictorGijsbers Thank you very much, Sir. Great help.
It seems that one cannot distinguish the truth realist vs the truth anti-realist by their behaviors (outside of debating realism/antirealism) - both will produce the same math and science. In which case the realism/anti-realism difference regarding truth is doing no work. Its a difference that makes no difference. Is this a reasonable inference?
Some pragmatists might say that, but I think there can be a big difference in philosophy, which in turn influences other things. Even Rorty, a pretty thoroughgoing pragmatist, thought the difference could make a difference, because realism tells us to submit to a nonhuman authority and antirealism makes us fully responsible ourselves. Rorty thought this distinction can have ramifications in ethics and politics. Or take, for a totally different example, one's attitude to the continuum hypothesis in mathematics. The antirealist will think we've got a free choice to accept it, the realist will yearn for an insight into its truth or falsity.
@@VictorGijsbers Makes sense. (Its true, I was channeling Rorty). Thank you. Really appreciate this channel.
The problem that the anti-realist faces is their reliance on mere empiricism as means for absolute truth/knowledge. A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but there are many things that are obviously the case that are not empirically verified to be so - the universals.
They include numbers, the laws of logic/thought, the self/mind, time & space (see Kant's a priori metaphysic, although flawed), ethics, the past, etc.
These "things" exist, but are non-material, therefore not subject to direct empirical investigation. Are they related to empirical investigation? Yes. But they are not empirically verified to exist, nor can they be.
But an antirealist doesn't have to limit themselves to empirical investigation. The antirealist in mathematics typically will not, for instance.
@@VictorGijsbers I thought that the antirealist was averse to describing mathematical truth as independent of the human mind because of an empirical approach. I may have misunderstood.
I don't see how the anti-realist can claim reality is what comes out of our _best_ methods if they have no independent grounding for what constitutes a _good_ method. What's to stop them from simply asserting the current methods are the _best_ possible and therefore everything they produce is right by definition? Seems patently circular to me.
It makes sense in mathematics because all systems that don't contain a contradiction are permitted. So there are no worse or better systems, they simply either contain a contradiction or they don't. But extending the anti-realist view to all of science seems to deny that their can be any progress at all in science. Isn't it all just a fad of which method is preferred for this moment?
But the realist is in exactly the same boat. For the realist *also* has no independent grounding for what constitutes a good method. They cannot step out of their method and compare its results to reality, because our method is, by definition, that which we use to judge what reality is like.
@@VictorGijsbers
Isn't this the problem that pragmatism is meant to solve?
I agree with much of what you say here, though I think you giving an overly charitable description of the anti realism narrative that underpins western political discourse now.
By juxtaposing mathematical theory throughout the discussion, I believe you are guiding a conclusion you wish the viewer to draw.
The current political narratives in the West have their origins in Hegel, Rousseau, Marx, and the Marxist influenced post modern theorists like Foucault, Derrida, Bell, Kendi, Marcuse, etc.
The political praxis of the academic idea of contemporary anti realism, driving the dominant progressive political discourse, is exactly the idea that the Human mind creates reality, specifically, the objective world. The Soviet Man, the End of History, and its modern relation - Intersectional Systemic Analysis, and the end of oppressor-oppressed relation. End-of-History, Intersectionality and Perfected State are all gnostic beliefs that human society are merely projections of group human psychology. The material world is a psychological hologram. This is literally what is believed. Literal telekinesis, based on antirealism. Progress is the deconstruction of human psychology to achieve the intersectional utopia.
Empiricism or objectivity are not just open to a third option in antirealism - in these current world interpretations, antirealism has a spiritual, religious narrative, that humans bend the physical world with brain waves. That is the utopia described at the end of the intersectional, Hegelian or Marxian "End-of-History" rainbows. Hence "XYZ is a social construct", as a fit-all reposte in discourse.
I think you are fair, but your own nuance and biases are the underpinning to lead the witness, and beg the question. It would be better to fully represent the practical results of these ideas in the political realm now, from opposing sides, as well as an academically neutral (practically impossible for humans) exploration.
I don't blame you for this, but you are an Academic, in Leiden, in the Netherlands, in a 21st century Netherlands city. This is the water you swim in, so you would either be very brave, or willing to face social and financial ostracisation, in this situation, to fully flesh out the range of antirealism ideas that are adopted in our modern, western societies.