Anti-realists believe that theories are useful instruments for prediction, but they do not tell us anything about the underlying reality of nature. What do you think?
2007-01-02 18:45:18 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Depends on the theory, and particularly on whether there is a way of demonstrating that the theory is false. If no such way exists, the theory is useless and can tell nothing about the reality of nature, or anything else. If it does exist, then one can learn something about reality.
2007-01-02 18:53:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before one can claim that certain things cannot tell us anything about the underlying reality of nature, one must be able to explain what does it mean by "underlying reality of nature", or at least give some examples. I suspect that they have at best a foggy notion what that might be, but nonetheless certain that any and all theories known to man is incapable of explaining any of it. If that's not so, and they claim to know what's the underlying reality of nature, then we know that it's not a theory of anti-realists to make the original assertion, because then it would be a violation of it!
2007-01-03 02:58:48 · answer #2 · answered by Scythian1950 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My guess is because "theories" are basically just ideas. Educated ideas, often proven ideas, but still just ideas.
2007-01-03 04:33:21 · answer #3 · answered by Voodoid 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Or unreality, I suppose.
2007-01-03 02:52:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, why not... sounds good to me.
2007-01-03 02:49:39 · answer #5 · answered by Frank G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋