Addressing Naive Realism and Scientism, as well as highlighting Scientific Realism and Philosophy as a path to Truth

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

I fully enjoy the value (axiology) of archaeology (empirical evidence from fact or artifacts at a site) is knowledge (epistemology) of the past, adding to our anthropology (evidence from cultures, both the present and past), and intellectual (rational) assumptions of the likely reality of actual events from time past.

Nothing is a justified true belief without valid or reliable reason and evidence; just as everything believed must be open to question, leaving nothing above challenge.

Who should win? The Truth or one of Our EGO’s?

Defending Naive Realism and Scientism with Damien AtHope

I am against both Naive Realism and Scientism.

I support Scientific Realism and Philosophy as a path to truth.

Also, I value Intellectual honesty and Intellectual humility.

ref

Naïve realism

“In philosophy of perception and epistemology, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, manifest realism or perceptual realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are. When referred to as direct realism, naïve realism is often contrasted with indirect realism. According to the naïve realist, the objects of perception are not representations of external objects, but are in fact those external objects themselves. The naïve realist is typically also a metaphysical realist, holding that these objects continue to obey the laws of physics and retain all of their properties regardless of whether or not there is anyone to observe them. They are composed of matter, occupy space, and have properties, such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste, and colour, that are usually perceived correctly. The indirect realist, by contrast, holds that the objects of perception are simply representations of reality based on sensory inputs, and thus adheres to the primary/secondary quality distinction in ascribing properties to external objects. In addition to indirect realism, naïve realism can also be contrasted with some forms of idealism, which claim that no world exists apart from mind-dependent ideas, and some forms of philosophical skepticism, which say that we cannot trust our senses or prove that we are not radically deceived in our beliefs; that our conscious experience is not of the real world but of an internal representation of the world. Many philosophers claim that it is incompatible to accept naïve realism in the philosophy of perception and scientific realism in the philosophy of science. Scientific realism states that the universe contains just those properties that feature in a scientific description of it, which would mean that secondary qualities like color are not real per se, and that all that exists are certain wavelengths which are reflected by physical objects because of their microscopic surface texture.” ref

“The naïve realist is generally committed to the following views:

• Metaphysical realism: There exists a world of material objects, which exist independently of being perceived, and which have properties such as shape, size, color, mass, and so on independently of being perceived
• Empiricism: Some statements about these objects can be known to be true through sensory experience
• Naïve realism: By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is, meaning that our claims to have knowledge of it are justified.” ref

Scientism

“Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. While the term was defined originally to mean “methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists”, some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities).” With respect to the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Mary Midgley, the later Hilary Putnam, and Tzvetan Todorov to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methods and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.” ref

“Scientism is also sometimes used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method, and the opinion that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning, sometimes to the complete exclusion of other opinions, such as historical, philosophical, economic or cultural opinions. It has been defined as “the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society”. The term scientism is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism with respect to all topics of human knowledge. Both religious and non-religious scholars have applied the term scientism to individuals associated with New Atheism. Non-religious scholars have also associated New Atheist thought with scientism and/or with positivism. Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued that philosopher Sam Harris conflated all empirical knowledge with scientific knowledge.” ref

AI Overview: The New Atheist movement’s frequent dismissal or devaluation of philosophy in favor of empirical science is frequently cited by critics as a key indicator of scientism—the belief that scientific knowledge is the only form of valid knowledge. New Atheists, particularly Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have been criticized for arguing that complex, non-empirical questions (such as ethics, meaning, or the existence of God) are best or exclusively addressed by science. New Atheism is often seen as “naive positivism” because it disregards centuries of philosophical, ethical, and theological inquiry. Critics note that the central tenet of scientism—that only scientific claims are true—is itself a philosophical claim that cannot be empirically proven, rendering the position logically self-refuting. Critics (including some philosophers of science) argue that this approach “makes science into a religion” and fails to account for the limitations of the scientific method. 

“A 2023 research article by Rik Peels in the journal Interdisciplinary Science Reviews explores the concept of scientism, defining it as the belief that science is the only means of obtaining knowledge and truth. Peels distinguishes between weak scientism, which limits the validity of science to specific areas, and strong scientism, which extends this validity to all fields of knowledge. The author argues that strong scientism is untenable and self-confuting because science itself is based on common sense assumptions and non-scientific principles. He proposes that scientism can be considered a form of fundamentalism, characterized by a Manichean narrative that is reactive against other sources of knowledge. The article suggests that science can learn from mainstream religion when it comes to scientific fundamentalism, by promoting a more open and tolerant approach to other forms of knowledge.” ref

Scientific Realism

“Scientific realism is the philosophical view that the universe described by science (including both observable and unobservable aspects) exists independently of our perceptions, and that verified scientific theories are at least approximately true descriptions of what is real. Scientific realists typically assert that science, when successful, uncovers true (or approximately true) knowledge about nature, including aspects of reality that are not directly observable. Within philosophy of science, this view is often an answer to the question “how is the success of science to be explained?” The discussion on the success of science in this context centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories. Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make valid claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables, as opposed to instrumentalism. In a 2020 PhilPapers Survey, 72% of academic philosophers favored scientific realism vs only 15% favoring antirealism. Realists therefore argue that science progresses: later theories generally answer more questions or do so more accurately, thus moving closer, though never necessarily reaching, the ideal of a literally true account of nature. Scientific realism is related to much older philosophical positions including rationalism and metaphysical realism. However, it is a thesis about science developed in the twentieth century. Portraying scientific realism in terms of its ancient, medieval, and early modern cousins is at best misleading.” ref

“One of the main arguments for scientific realism centers on the notion that scientific knowledge is progressive in nature, and that it is able to predict phenomena successfully. Many scientific realists (e.g., Ernan McMullin, Richard Boyd) think the operational success of a theory lends credence to the idea that its more unobservable aspects exist, because they were how the theory reasoned its predictions. For example, a scientific realist would argue that science must derive some ontological support for atoms from the outstanding phenomenological success of all the theories using them. Arguments for scientific realism often appeal to abductive reasoning or “inference to the best explanation” (Lipton, 2004). For instance, one argument commonly used—the “miracle argument” or “no miracles argument”—starts out by observing that scientific theories are highly successful in predicting and explaining a variety of phenomena, often with great accuracy. Thus, it is argued that the best explanation—the only explanation that renders the success of science to not be what Hilary Putnam calls “a miracle”—is the view that our scientific theories (or at least the best ones) provide true descriptions of the world, or approximately so. Bas van Fraassen replies with an evolutionary analogy: “I claim that the success of current scientific theories is no miracle. It is not even surprising to the scientific (Darwinist) mind. For any scientific theory is born into a life of fierce competition, a jungle red in tooth and claw. Only the successful theories survive—the ones which in fact latched on to actual regularities in nature.” (The Scientific Image, 1980).” ref

• Disciplined Inquiry:Aristotle defined philosophy as the science that considers truth, moving beyond mere speculation to a structured exploration of reality.
• Critical Thinking and Reason: It requires challenging,, or questioning, established assumptions and engaging in rational analysis.
• The Pursuit of Wisdom: Philosophy acts as a guide to understanding the nature of reality (metaphysics) and how we know what we know (epistemology).
• Dynamic vs. Fixed: Truth in philosophy is often seen as complex and unfolding, requiring continuous dialogue and a willingness to adapt one’s views as understanding grows.
• Self-Awareness and Humility: It involves recognizing the limitations of human knowledge, with some perspectives suggesting the highest truth comes from understanding the self.

AI OVERVIEW: Intellectual honesty is the commitment to pursuing and representing the truth, regardless of personal convenience, ego, or preconceived beliefs. It involves an internal, ethical dedication to accuracy, honesty in argumentation, and the willingness to revise views based on evidence. Prioritizing what is actually true over what is comfortable, flattering, or confirms existing beliefs. Being comfortable with saying “I don’t know” or admitting when you are wrong.

AI OVERVIEW: Intellectual humility is the recognition that one’s beliefs and knowledge are fallible and limited, allowing for openness to new information, opposing views, and the capacity to change one’s mind. It balances intellectual arrogance and diffidence, valuing truth over ego, reducing defensiveness, and promoting constructive dialogue. Accepting that one does not know everything and being aware of one’s own fallibility. Recognizing that one’s own knowledge is limited and that others may have valid insights.

May Reason Set You Free. Reason is a revolutionary process as it requires its user to switch from what is reasoned to what may be desired or believed before. May we all master reason, and reason is my only master.

AI Overview: Naïve realism is the cognitive bias and subjective belief that one perceives the world objectively, “as it is,” while viewing differing perspectives as biased, uninformed, or irrational. It causes individuals to trust their own senses and interpretations as direct reflections of reality, leading to political polarization, conflict, and a failure to recognize one’s own biases. The tendency to believe our subjective experience of the world is an accurate, unmediated representation of reality. It often leads to the “false consensus effect,” where we assume others share our perceptions, and the “bias blind spot,” where we fail to see our own biases. Because we believe our view is objective, we assume anyone disagreeing with us is irrational or misinformed.

AI Overview: Scientific realism asserts that scientific theories provide true or approximately true descriptions of an objective, mind-independent world. It posits that unobservable entities, like electrons, or DNA, actually exist. Rationalism complements this by emphasizing that human reason, rather than sensory experience alone, is the primary source of knowledge and logical justification. While often distinct in origin (rationalism is an ancient epistemology, realism a 20th-century philosophy of science), they intersect in the belief that science is a rational, orderly process. Realism provides the what (the world is real), while Rationalism provides the how (we understand it through logic and reason). Rationalism often supports realism by arguing that the logical structure of scientific theories corresponds to the logical structure of reality.

AI Overview: Scientific realism is the philosophical position that scientific theories accurately describe both observable and unobservable aspects of an objective, independent world. Conversely, scientism is the ideological belief that science is the only valid source of truth, often dismissing ethics, arts, or metaphysics. While realism supports scientific accuracy, scientism overreaches by elevating science into an all-encompassing dogma. In essence, a scientific realist can respect science without claiming it is the only way to understand reality, whereas someone practicing scientism argues that any claim not verified by science is meaningless. Scientism holds that science is the only method for attaining knowledge and truth, and that it can answer all human questions. Realism acknowledges that science provides knowledge about the physical world, but often admits other areas (like ethics) are outside its scope. Scientism argues that only scientific knowledge is valid. Realism focuses on the truth of scientific theories; Scientism focuses on science as the exclusive method.

AI Overview: Scientists extract ancient DNA (sedimentary DNA or sedaDNA) from dirt to reconstruct past ecosystems, sometimes dating back 2 million years. This technique involves collecting soil, specifically from cold, dark, or clay-rich environments, which binds and protects genetic material, such as skin, hair, and feces, from degradation. While some argue that science has discovered “real” entities (like DNA) that exist independently of our beliefs (a form of realism), this is often not “naive” in the philosophical sense. Modern science, including aDNA analysis, recognizes that observations are highly mediated by instruments, algorithms, and models. Naive realism often sees the mind or scientific method as a passive “mirror” reflecting reality. However, aDNA research shows that we do not simply “see” the past; we “reconstruct” it, which is an active, not passive, process. The field of ancient DNA is a testament to the rejection of naive realism, as it is plagued by issues that require sophisticated, indirect, and interpretative methods. In essence, while naive realism might tempt one to believe that ancient DNA provides a direct, “pure” window into the past, the reality is that aDNA science is a highly sophisticated, indirect, and interpretive enterprise. 

AI Overview: Scientific Realism and DNA

Scientific Realism asserts that the DNA molecule and its double-helix structure are real, objective entities, not just convenient fictions, because the theory’s high predictive power (e.g., genetic engineering, medicine) would otherwise be a miracle. This view supports that, as science advances, our understanding of molecular mechanisms (such as, DNA replication NCBI) accurately reflects reality, despite potential, minor future revisions to the theory. Ancient DNA is degraded, fragmented (usually <120 bp), and often contaminated with modern human DNA or environmental microbes. Scientists must use complex statistical models to identify and filter out these contaminants, meaning they are not viewing the “raw” data directly. A “naïve” view would assume that the DNA from one bone tells the whole story. In reality, aDNA researchers must use probabilistic models to infer population histories, such as identifying admixture or endogamy. The process of aDNA research is a “controlled interpretation” of fragmented data, where the “truth” of the past is inferred rather than directly perceived. Researchers, like those studying early European farmers, often debate the interpretation of their findings, acknowledging that their conclusions are not just “obvious” or “naive” facts. 

Scientific Realism Definition: The philosophical position that successful scientific theories provide an approximately true description of the world, and that the unobservable entities they describe (like genes or DNA) exist.

The No Miracles Argument supporting Scientific Realism: If DNA did not exist, it would be a “miracle” that scientists can use the theory to predict and manipulate biological processes, such as in gene editing.

DNA as a Test Case of Scientific Realism: The, double-helix structure, discovered and validated through decades of research, serves as a concrete example of a theoretical entity that has become, a foundational, observable truth in modern biology.

Structural Realism: Even if future, more detailed theories update the current understanding of DNA, structural realism suggests the underlying structure of DNA (e.g., as the carrier of heredity) will remain, a valid, accurate part of science.

AI Overview: Scientific realism in the context of the genetics of “skin color” from ancient DNA means acknowledging that, despite the difficulty of analyzing damaged ancient samples, the genetic data provides a largely accurate, objective understanding of historical human phenotypes and evolutionary mechanisms. This field illustrates scientific realism by using cutting-edge DNA technology to revise long-held, inaccurate beliefs about the swiftness of human pigment evolution and the deep history of human skin diversity. The accuracy of predicting phenotypes from aDNA depends heavily on coverage; coverage below 8x can lead to significant misassignments, highlighting the need for rigorous, high-coverage data analysis to maintain scientific accuracy. Genomic studies of European hunter-gatherers and early farmers, such as the 10,000-year-old “Cheddar Man,” indicate they had dark skin and light-colored eyes, with lighter skin spreading during the Neolithic period, around 7,000–3,000 years ago. Ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis reveals that European skin pigmentation lightened relatively recently, with many ancestors possessing dark skin until roughly 3,000–5,000 years ago, challenging previous assumptions of rapid adaptation. This research highlights that skin color is polygenic and evolved independently in different populations through complex interactions of migration and environmental selection, undermining biological notions of race. 

ref, ref, ref, ref

ref, ref, ref

Western hunter-gatherer (14,000~9,000 years ago) map

Middle info is from the video: CARTA: The Genetic History of Europe with Johannes Krause

Eastern hunter-gatherer (14,000~9,000 years ago) map

ref

Info is from the video: CARTA: The Genetic History of Europe with Johannes Krause

Otzi the Iceman

AI Overview: A 2023 re-analysis of the 5,300-year-old Alpine mummy, Ötzi the Iceman, revealed he had significantly darker skin than previous, lighter-skinned reconstructions suggested. Genetic studies indicate he had high Anatolian farmer ancestry and possessed the darkest skin tone recorded in any European from that era. Alongside dark skin and dark eyes, the new analysis found genes predisposing him to male pattern baldness, suggesting he likely had a very sparse crown of hair rather than long, thick hair.

AI Overview: Scientific realism maintains that while scientific knowledge is fallible, it advances towards truth through continuous, evidence-based correction. Realists hold that while theories can be corrected, successful theories are generally “on the right track” or approximately true. Scientific progress is viewed as a closer approximation to the truth over time, even if early theories are ultimately replaced. Corrections occur because scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence, which can be refined, leading to better, more precise descriptions of the world. Scientific realism claims that scientific advancements often involve discovering or better understanding entities that cannot be directly observed. Scientific realism generally maintains that the continuous, self-correcting nature of science—where evidence leads to the refinement or replacement of theories—is evidence of a progressively accurate understanding of a real, objective world. 

AI Overview: Whether mathematics is considered a science depends on the definition used. Generally, mathematics is classified as a “formal science“ (distinct from natural/empirical sciences) because it relies on logic and proof rather than empirical observation. While essential to science as a tool for modeling, it is often viewed as a “hybrid” or an “art” focused on abstract structures. Scientism, the philosophical belief that empirical science constitutes the only source of knowledge and truth, often encounters, and sometimes rejects, mathematics because it does not fit neatly within the empirical, falsifiable framework of the natural sciences. Rejections of mathematics within a strict scientism framework typically center on the argument that math is an abstract, deductive, and non-empirical construct, rather than a branch of science that observes the real world. A core tenet of science is that theories must be falsifiable through observation. Mathematics, by contrast, relies on axioms and proofs, which are considered to be true by definition or deductive logic, not by empirical experiment. Therefore, from a strict scientism perspective, math is sometimes viewed as a “formal science” or an intellectual game, distinct from the “natural sciences” that deal with reality.

Because mathematics operates independently of the physical world, its conclusions cannot always be checked or refuted by empirical data. Some proponents of strict scientism argue that math can create models that appear valid internally but have no connection to physical reality. While Eugene Wigner famously pointed out the “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics in physics, some argue that this fails in other areas, such as biology or complex social systems. In these fields, complex, non-linear interactions often make simple mathematical models less effective than empirical observation, suggesting that math is not a universal tool for understanding all phenomena. Some proponents of strict scientism argue that math should not be used to overrule or dictate empirical findings. They argue that because science is grounded in observation and sampling of physical reality, it is more reliable in describing how the universe actually operates than the purely abstract deductions of math. Some arguments within this framework suggest that mathematical concepts are free creations of the human mind rather than discoveries of inherent, external realities. This perspective, closely aligned with Mathematical Formalism, challenges the idea that math describes an independent, objective reality, placing it closer to an “art” or language rather than a science.

• Scientific Method: Science relies on observation and testing hypotheses (empirical), while mathematics uses deductive reasoning to prove theorems.
• Nature of Truth: Scientific laws can be falsified by new data, but mathematical truths (proofs) are absolute and immutable.
• Definition of Science: Under a strict definition of science as studying the natural world through experimentation, mathematics is not a science.
• Broad Definition: In a broader context, mathematics is a foundational “formal science,” sometimes called the “queen of sciences” due to its role in structuring other fields. 

AI Overview: Mathematics and logic act as the foundational language, modeling tools, and deductive engines for empirical science, shaping the worldview of scientism—the belief that scientific investigation is the only, or superior, source of knowledge. While science relies on induction, mathematics provides the deductive certainty needed to formalize, analyze, and test scientific theories. Non-strict Scientism, knowing it or not, often relies on the idea that if a concept cannot be modeled mathematically or tested through empirical, logical methods, it is invalid, effectively narrowing the scope of knowledge to what can be quantified. Under less strict Scientism mathematics may be viewed as the essential language for formulating laws of physics, treating natural phenomena as quantifiable systems. Mathematical modeling enables predictions that, when compared to empirical observations, allow theories (like general relativity) to be verified.

Philosophy of Science with Damien Marie AtHope – the Methods of Intellectual Bravery and Curiosity

Let’s Talk on Philosophy: its development of truth, good thinking standards, and relations to science

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Philosophy of Science?

“Philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. Amongst its central questions are the difference between science and non-science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose and meaning of science as a human endeavor. Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of scientific practice, and overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, logic, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and the concept of truth. Philosophy of science is both a theoretical and empirical discipline, relying on philosophical theorizing as well as meta-studies of scientific practice.” ref

Some may say well I just use critical thinking. I say great, that is roughly the philosophy of rationalism, or some activity reflective of the philosophy of skepticism. Critical thinking is inward-directed with the intent of maximizing the rationality of the thinker. Many people are ego based and use knowledge or understanding as a thing to destroy people. I don’t claim some deluded ivory tower never touched by ego, but I do somberly wish to help people as well as build them up with the use of knowledge or understanding. I try to use philosophy to educate and inspire deep thinking. What I wish to destroy is uncritical thinking and I also desire in the process to inspire critical thinking to then help people go and build other people up as well. The other thing often wrongly assumed is there is one thinking on science but there is a wide variation of that to understood in the philosophy of science. Can philosophy develop by itself, without the support of science? I say philosophy must be grounded in the real world and thus needs the support of science. Can science “work” without the support of philosophy? I say science must be grounded in methodology standards to conceive of the real world thus needs the support of philosophy. I think it’s a matter of the two different things, in which both are benefited by each other just like the interplay of adding Validity and Reliability together to ensure accuracy.

I am a Realist in Many ways: 

I have a positive epistemic attitude (belief) towards or in philosophical realism that there is a real external world and that is what can be known or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 

I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in scientific realism that the content of the best scientific theories, models, and aspects of the world described by the sciences can be known or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 

I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in logical realism such as that logic is the means of discovering the structure of facts and their projection in the language such as the Law of Non-Contradiction or logical fallacies. Which represent logical truths pertaining to aspects of the world and can be known or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 

I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in mathematical realism. Such as that 2 + 2 equals 4 even if there are no intelligences or minds. Because math is in a sense a method of communication or description of and or about aspects of the world quantifying what can be known or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 

I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in value realism roughly speaking “axiological realism,” is that value claims (such as nurturing a baby is good and abusing a baby is bad) can be literally true or false. That some such claims are indeed true; that their truth can be known or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 

I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in epistemological realism roughly speaking, which is that what you know about an object exists independently of your mind. This relates directly to the correspondence theory of truth, which claims that the world exists independently and innately to our perceptions of it. Our sensory data then reflect or correspond to the innate world and that such truths, can be known, or substantially approximated by humans objectively. 

I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in moral realism roughly speaking, which is that some moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, while not all at least some moral claims actually are true or have a connection to additional commitments, in which the truth can be reached, and those facts in some specified way can be known or substantially approximated by humans objectively. Truth is a value judgment we confirm with valid and reliable reason as well as evidence, available or connected logically to them.

I support a Scientific Realism approach/thinking?

“In a 2020 PhilPapers Survey 72% of academic philosophers favored scientific realism. Scientific realism is the philosophical view that the universe described by science (including both observable and unobservable aspects) exists independently of our perceptions, and that verified scientific theories are at least approximately true descriptions of what is real. Scientific realists typically assert that science, when successful, uncovers true (or approximately true) knowledge about nature, including aspects of reality that are not directly observable. Within philosophy of science, this view is often an answer to the question “how is the success of science to be explained?” The discussion on the success of science in this context centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories. Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make valid claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables, as opposed to instrumentalism.” ref

“In philosophy of science and in epistemology, instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in explaining and predicting natural phenomena. Rejecting scientific realism‘s ambitions to uncover metaphysical truth about nature, instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism, although its mere lack of commitment to scientific theory’s realism can be termed nonrealism. According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature’s unobservable objects, properties or processes.” ref

Scientific realism’s No miracles argument

“One of the main arguments for scientific realism centers on the notion that scientific knowledge is progressive in nature, and that it is able to predict phenomena successfully. Many scientific realists (e.g., Ernan McMullin, Richard Boyd) think the operational success of a theory lends credence to the idea that its more unobservable aspects exist, because they were how the theory reasoned its predictions. For example, a scientific realist would argue that science must derive some ontological support for atoms from the outstanding phenomenological success of all the theories using them. Arguments for scientific realism often appeal to abductive reasoning or “inference to the best explanation.” For instance, one argument commonly used—the “miracle argument” or “no miracles argument”—starts out by observing that scientific theories are highly successful in predicting and explaining a variety of phenomena, often with great accuracy. Thus, it is argued that the best explanation—the only explanation that renders the success of science to not “a miracle”—is the view that our scientific theories (or at least the best ones) provide true descriptions of the world, or approximately so.  “I claim that the success of current scientific theories is no miracle. It is not even surprising to the scientific (Darwinist) mind. For any scientific theory is born into a life of fierce competition, a jungle red in tooth and claw. Only the successful theories survive—the ones which in fact latched on to actual regularities in nature.” ref

But, I hear some say, science does not need philosophy. Really, okay then, I have a question for you:

“Does science observation trump philosophy, or does philosophy trump science observation?”

We are emotional beings who only sometimes use reason. I like when science-only-people say they value science observation proof, as the highest proof, even possibly adding that they either have a low regard or as far as state they do not believe in philosophy at all as useful, which I find amazing and saddening. I am a metaphysical naturalist (basically everything is reducible to physical) because of the universal reliable truth of the application of the scientific methods reliable and only demonstration using methodological naturalism, no magic, not even simple supernatural found in any amount ever anywhere by anyone. I am a Methodological Rationalist, I rarely am pushed to doubt as a default, instead, I see reason as my default style and at times it may be responsible to doubt, but I get to that conclusion because of reasoning. 

The Battle of Truth

But, then often some of these same science-only-people, when I state I believe it is reasonable to state we can know the external-science-observation-proof of and about reality with a very high level of certainty and still can remain open if new altering observation is found, they say “no” we cannot ever be highly certain that things are a fact (although they seem to state this as a hard fact), some even going as far as stating, we can never be certain of anything. Some think science has no philosophy.

But, then I wonder, on what do they make such a strong claim; of non-philosophy science-only-observation?

The first general Scientific requirement is for proven methodological answers which is evidence of epistemology (which involves a philosophy philosophical theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief(s) from opinion(s) and the tool they most utilize is the Scientific Method.

It has this epistemology standard (requirement is for proven methodological justified answers) due to the value and use of Rationalism.

In epistemology, rationalism in this context is the view that “any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification”. More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory “in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive”

* The Scientific Method (multiple methods some of which involve philosophy: Rationalism, Metaphysical naturalism, Evidentialism, Empiricism, Falsificationism, Skepticism, Fallibilism, and Logic)?

* Methodological naturalism (which involves a philosophy of scientific materialism, a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences) a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.  Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method.

* Evidentialism (which involves a philosophical theory of justification)

* Empiricism (which involves a philosophy of knowledge)

* Falsificationism (which involves a philosophical approach to knowledge)

* Skepticism “methodological skepticism” (which involves a philosophical approach involving a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one’s beliefs, which has become a characteristic method in philosophy. Moreover, methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims.

* Fallibilism (which unlike many forms of skepticism, does not imply that we have no knowledge; fallibilists typically deny that knowledge requires absolute certainty. Instead, fallibilism is an admission that, because empirical knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as empirical knowledge might turn out to be false. Some fallibilists make an exception for things that are necessarily true (such as mathematical and logical truths).

* Logic (which involves a philosophy use and study of valid reasoning “rationalism”)

Still not convinced that Science uses philosophy Or is it unjustified doubt because of the philosophy of skepticism, if not tells us how without any branch of philosophy you know this, otherwise, I say it’s some philosophy.

So, wait which is it then, does philosophy trumps science observation proof of reality, but I thought you did not think philosophy was better than science? Lol

Philosophical Skepticism, Solipsism, and the Denial of Reality or Certainty

I hear Over and Over again that there is NO “scientific proof”, only “science evidence or facts”

An “Idiot’s Guide” to the American Upper Paleolithicpresented by Dr. Clark Wernecke

“In this talk, Dr. Wernecke will review the history of Paleoindian archaeology and the evidence that debunks the “Clovis First” theory, and examine how this evidence is shifting the paradigm on how scholars perceive the early migrations into the Americas.”

From times 51:58 to 53:42 minutes in the video the presenter (Dr. Clark Wernecke) states, “Most importantly, what you should take home from today’s talk, is heightened skepticism. Skepticism is healthy, and it is part of science. Watch the language, there are code words that should wave large red flags in your head, and the following are all examples, all from recent publications. I like this one, “this study proves” or “We prove”, the scientific method does not prove things, we try to disprove them. And then even if much of our data may suggest that are data is otherwise, “prove” is a very definitive word. I like this one, “conclusively shows”, really?,  beyond a shadow of a doubt it “conclusively shows”? Or “does not support”, ok, but on the surface, this might seem ok, it is a real weasel phrase. Lots of things don’t support a hypothesis, dirt on my shoe does not support my hypothesis that the ozone of the earth is depleting. Nope, no it does not, so what? There are a lot of things that don’t support things. “Refutes the possibility”, oh, this is reserved when you have a real ax to grind, with a colleague. This is not only wrong, it is impossible to ever be right! When you see phrases like this, I want you to think of me, using my most sarcastic tone, and going, “really?” So read these things and think about them.” ref

I don’t believe as him, though, we know that I am a rationalist but a skeptic, soooo. Lol

He states any archaeology or science that states “proves” etc. can never be true because science doesn’t prove things it only tries to disprove. And to me, there is so much wrong in what was stated, I will start by only offering one: his argument of “disprove”, is to “prove” it is not accurate or relatable to the claim.

I hear over and over again that there is no “scientific proof” only “science evidence or facts.” But a fact: is a thing that is known or proven to be true. And evidence: is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. ref, ref

As an archaeologist does, he really believes there is no proof of stone tool technology? As we have clear evidence for from at least 3.3 million years until around 3300 BCE or 5,300 years ago in the Near East of stone tools being made and used, though the exact dates vary globally, with some regions adopting metal much later? 

As a science supporter, can one not say that we have proof of planets such as the Earth? Or no proof of life existing on that Earth? Or no proof that modern humans emerged by evolution just like all life, which evolved on the Earth? And are we not sure of proof that humans were not separate from animal life that evolved and not created by some claimed god-something 6,000 to 10,000 years ago as is argued by some creationist believers?

“A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition. The concept applies in a variety of disciplines, with both the nature of the evidence or justification and the criteria for sufficiency being area-dependent. In some areas of epistemology and theology, the notion of justification plays approximately the role of proof, while in jurisprudence the corresponding term is evidence, with “burden of proof” as a concept common to both philosophy and law. In most disciplines, evidence is required to prove something. Evidence is drawn from the experience of the world around us, with science obtaining its evidence from nature. Exactly what evidence is sufficient to prove something is also strongly area-dependent, usually with no absolute threshold of sufficiency at which evidence becomes proof.” ref

Many seem unaware that science involves philosophy, but most science communications don’t fully explain the philosophy in science. And even when they are somewhat explained, it is likely limited, and thus can add some confusion.

“The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

So “proof” in such an agreement is a “sufficient amount of warrant.”

Moore’s Proof of an External World: Responding to External World Skepticism

“Most people who first encounter Moore’s Proof typically think that it’s a total failure. As we’ve seen, it’s not clear why or even whether it is a failure. External world skepticism is the view that we cannot know anything about the external world: we can’t know that we have hands, that there are other people, or, in general, know that anything external to our minds exists. Such skeptics commonly argue that we can’t refute skeptical hypotheses—such as that everything is a projection of our own minds—and that since we can’t do that, we can’t know that we have hands or much else. British philosopher G. E. Moore (in)famously purported to refute external world skepticism with what’s known as Moore’s Proof: he held out his hands during a lecture and said “Here is one hand” and “here is another”, claiming to prove that there is an external world on that basis. While philosophers tend not to think that Moore’s Proof refutes skepticism, it is hard to explain why.” ref

“Proof, in logic, is an argument that establishes the validity of a proposition. Although proofs may be based on inductive logic, in general, the term proof connotes a rigorous deduction.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/proof-logic

Extreme Skepticism: Solipsism?

Solipsism (from Latin solus, meaning “alone”, and ipse, meaning “self”) is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. 

To me, solipsism is trying to limit itself to rationalism only to, of, or by itself. Everyone, including a Solipsist must appeal to rationalism or use irrationally, as it is the mind to which all possible knowledge flows; consider this, if you think you can reject rational thinking as the base of everything, what other standard can you champion that does not at its core return to the process of mind as we do classify people by intelligence. If you cannot use rationalism what does this mean, irrationalism? A Solipsist, is appealing to rationalism as we only have our mind or the minds of others to help navigate the world accurately as possible.

Thinking is occurring and it is both accessible as well as guided by what feels like me; thus, it is rational to assume I have a thinking mind, so, I exist.

But, some skeptics challenge reality or certainty (although are themselves appealing to reason or rationality that it self they seem to accept almost a priori themselves to me). Brain in a vat or jar, Evil Demon in your mind, Matrix world as your mind, & Hologram world as your reality are some arguments in the denial or challenge of reality or certainty.

The use of “Brain in a vat” type thought experiment scenarios are common as an argument for philosophical skepticism and solipsism, against rationalism and empiricism or any belief in the external world’s existence.

Such thought experiment arguments do have a value are with the positive intent to draw out certain features or remove unreasoned certainty in our ideas of knowledge, reality, truth, mind, and meaning. However, these are only valuable as though challenges to remember the need to employ Disciplined-Rationality and the ethics of belief, not to take these thought experiment arguments as actual reality. Brain in a vat/jar, Evil Demon, Matrix world, and Hologram world are logical fallacies if assumed as a reality representations.

*First is the problem that they make is a challenge (alternative hypotheses) thus requiring their own burden of proof if they are to be seen as real.

*Second is the problem that they make in the act of presupposition in that they presuppose the reality of a real world with factual tangible things like Brains and that such real things as human brains have actual cognition and that there are real world things like vats or jars and computers invented by human beings with human real-world intelligence and will to create them and use them for intellectually meaningful purposes.

*Third is the problem of valid and reliable slandered as doubt is an intellectual professes needing to offer a valid and reliable slandered to who, what, why, and how they are proposing Philosophical Skepticism, Solipsism and the Denial of Reality or Certainty. Though one cannot on one had say I doubt everything and not doubt even that. One cannot say nothing can be known for certain, as they violate this very thought, as they are certain there is no certainty. The ability to think of reasonable doubt (methodological Skepticism) counteracts the thinking of unreasonable doubt (Philosophical Skepticism’s external world doubt and Solipsism). Philosophical skepticism is a method of reasoning which questions the possibility of knowledge is different than methodological skepticism is a method of reasoning, which questions knowledge claims with the goal finding what has warrant, justification to validate the truth or false status of beliefs or propositions.

*Fourth is the problem that external world doubt and Solipsism creates issues of reproducibility, details, and extravagancy. Reproducibility such as seen in experiments, observation and real-world evidence, scientific knowledge, scientific laws, and scientific theories. Details such as the extent of information to be contained in one mind such as trillions of facts and definable data and/or evidence. And extravagancy such as seen in the unreasonable amount of details in general and how that also brings the added strain to reproducibility and memorability. Extravagancy in the unreasonable amount of details also interacts with axiological and ethical reasoning such as why if there is no real world would you create rape, torture, or suffering of almost unlimited variations. Why not just rape but child rape not just torture but that of innocent children who would add that and the thousands of ways it can and does happen in the external world. Extravagancy is unreasonable, why a massive of cancers and infectious things, millions of ways to be harmed, suffer and die etc. There is a massive amount of extravagancy in infectious agents if the external world was make-believe because of infectious agents come in an unbelievable variety of shapes, sizes and types like bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, and parasites. Therefore, the various types of pleasure and pain both seem an unreasonable extravagancy in a fake external world, therefore, the most reasonable conclusion is the external world is a justified true belief.

*Fifth is the problem that axiological or ethical thinking would say we only have what we understand and must curtail behavior ethically to such understanding. Think of ability to give consent having that reasoning ability brings with it the requirement of being responsible for our behaviors. If one believes the external world is not real, they remove any value (axiology) in people, places or things and if the external world is not real there is no behavior or things to interact with (ethics) so nothing can be helped or harmed by actions as there is no actions or ones acting them or having them acting for or against. In addition, if we do not know is we are actually existing or behaving in the real world we also are not certain we are not either, demanding that we must act as if it is real (pragmatically) do to ethical and axiological concerns which could be true. Because if we do act ethically and the reality of the external world is untrue we have done nothing but if we act unethical as if the reality of the external world is untrue and it is in fact real we have done something to violate ethics. Then the only right way to navigate the ethics of belief in such matters would say one should behave as though the external world is real. In addition, axiological or ethical thinking and the cost-benefit analysis of belief in the existence of the external world support and highly favors belief in the external world’s existence.

“According to Peter Klein at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Philosophical skeptic challenges our ordinary assumption that there is evidence available that can help us to discriminate between the real world and some counterfeit world that appears in all ways to be identical to the real world. Ordinary incredulity arises within the context of other propositions of a similar sort taken to be known, and, in principle, the doubt can be removed by discovering the truth of some further proposition of the relevant type. On the other hand, philosophical skepticism about a proposition of a certain type derives from considerations that are such that they cannot be removed by appealing to additional propositions of that type—or so the skeptic claims. These movies illustrate one other fundamental feature of the philosophical arguments for skepticism, namely, that the debate between the skeptics and their opponents takes place within the evidentialist account of knowledge which holds that knowledge is at least true, sufficiently justified belief. The debate is over whether the grounds are such that they can make a belief sufficiently justified so that a responsible epistemic agent is entitled to assent to the proposition. The basic issue at stake is whether the justification condition of knowledge can be fulfilled. A corollary of this is that strictly reliabilist or externalist responses to philosophical skepticism constitute a change of subject. A belief could be reliably produced, i.e., its causal pedigree could be such that anything having that causal etiology is sufficiently likely to be true, but the reasons available for it could fail to satisfy the standards agreed upon by both the skeptics and their opponents.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/

“For the record: Quantum mechanics does not deny the existence of objective reality. Nor does it imply that mere thoughts can change external events. Effects still require causes, so if you want to change the universe, you need to act on it.” – Lawrence M. Krauss 

“Damien, I like that you are an atheist, but I find Quantum Mechanics kind of magical, though.”

My response, Quantum mechanics is not supernatural; it is a natural scientific theory that describes the behavior of matter and energy at the atomic and subatomic levels. While it is counter-intuitive and “strange” compared to classical physics, its principles are based on evidence and mathematical frameworks, not mysticism or magic.

Epistemology Confusion?

Skeptics think they are more clever than me an astute rationalist, with claims such as, because we distrust our senses we therefore somehow can’t use them to know if we exist, but fear not my friends as all is not lost. Just saying something has a random nature is not an evidence clam it lacks all value. Lol

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art