Still catching up with the last four pages. So far, all I can say is most scientists strike me as instrumentalists. For those following along here, maybe a brief review of the anti realist view is useful.
A few things to say to that.
My impression is that instrumentalism, or some kind of antirealist stance in general, is
extremely rare throughout the sciences
as a whole. Scientific realism is the unreflective or pre-reflective
common sense position, and it takes a heavy dose of philosophy to disabuse one of the notion.
How many geologists do you know, for example, who do not think tectonic plates are
real? Indeed, I suspect they'd (in general) be utterly bemused by the question "Are tectonic plates real?" You'd probably get a blank stare to begin with. They may think you are quite mad. When they finally understood what is being is asked, you might hear "Have you lost your mind?
Of course they're real!".
(cf. Ask a physicist about the reality of superpositions of states, say. He may say yes or he may say no. It's unlikely, though, that he will think you
mad.)
Likewise, how many chemists do you know who are skeptical of the existence of
atoms, or biologists who doubt the reality of
genes or
natural selection? How many psychologists think that
pain or
beliefs are "useful fictions"?
There is of course one glaring exception:
physics, and in particular,
quantum physics, as exchemist notes above. Compare:
What's interesting about discussions with working physicists in places such as this -- and I recall first noticing this years ago on TheVat's site -- is that they tend to be thoroughly imbued with a vaguely positivistic ideology, probably without even being aware of the causes of their particular worldview, which they then extend to encompass all of science. It all comes across as very doctrinaire: there is only one way to approach science. Anyone else doesn't know what they're talking about. You see this reflected in comments such as "Science can't tell us how nature is, only how nature behaves" and "Our models do not even purport to describe reality".
As noted in the quote above, a great many physicists, thoroughly imbued with Bohr-esque thought in their education, espouse a vaguely antirealist or instrumentalist position which, due to philosophical naivete, is often
incoherent. Also due to philosophical naivete, they assume (unreflectively) that what applies to them in physics applies to
all of science. And then scientists in
other disciplines, due perhaps to the respect commanded by physics as
the science
par excellence, start thinking (unreflectively) that what applies to physics must apply to them as well.
Instrumentalism makes a great deal of sense when applied to quantum physics: it's extremely hard (cf.
impossible) to for us to conceive of how something can be
both a particle
and a wave; it's extremely hard (cf.
impossible) to for us to conceive of how a cat can be
both alive
and dead, or perhaps
neither alive
nor dead, existing (or not!) only in some inconceivable (literally!) superposition of states.
On the other hand, it doesn't make much sense
at all when applied to
dinosaurs or
hurricanes!
Antirealist positions of various kinds, including instrumentalism, can of course be formulated in a perfectly coherent and consistent way. Whether it is the
appropriate stance to adopt is another matter to be addressed separately.
Let me give an example of possible incoherency.
On a standard instrumentalist position, scientific theories, or at least those containing unobservables, are merely
tools or
instruments, as the name suggests. Tools or instruments
do not have truth values; they are neither true nor false. For example, if a theory
prima facie asserts (i.e.
seems to assert) that
electrons have a mass of X, say, this is not to be read
literally. Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, on the instrumentalist view,
no such thing is being asserted; it is
not being asserted that exists a tiny invisible thingy with a mass of X. This is all a "useful fiction".
Such assertions, though,
apparently making claims about
unobservable reality, can be
translated into claims pertaining only to
observable reality, which have truth values, thus can be tested for truth or falsity.
Now since, on the instrumentalist view, scientific theories (containing unobservables) do not have truth values, are not to be read
literally, moreover make no assertions about unobservable reality, then anyone declaring allegiance to instrumentalism and who goes on to further assert that scientific theories are
falsifiable, or that scientific theories yield knowledge of unobservable reality (photons
et al), has lapsed into incoherency. Obviously, that which
has no true value (T/F) -- e.g. a hammer -- cannot be
shown to be either true or false.
You may recall, Mr Vat, I got myself into a lot of trouble on another site a few years ago (not your own site, but you were there) for pointing out the incoherencies defended by the site moderators, presumably working physicists. Why did this happen? Observe:
* It was first asserted that "Science does not describe reality" and "Scientific theories/models do not even
try to describe reality" and suchlike.
* Properly qualified, and applied to
physics, and especially quantum physics, this is a sensible enough position, indeed Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg said very similar things themselves. It can be
contested, of course, and people like Einstein and Schrodinger
did contest it, but it's not a
ludicrous or an
incoherent position.
* But notice, what was asserted is not "
Physics does not attempt to describe reality" but rather "
Science does not attempt to describe reality".
* Presumably what has happened is that those making the assertions have heard or seen the former claim -- perhaps during their physics education -- and inadvertently altered and expanded it to encompass
all of science. They also -- critically! -- fail to distinguish between
observable reality and
unobservable reality.
* "Physics does not attempt to describe
unobservable reality
" is a common enough and arguably sensible (Einstein
et al would demur, of course) position. By contrast, "Physics does not attempt to describe
observable reality" or simply "Physics does not attempt to describe
reality" is an insane claim -- no one in their right mind asserts this! Bohr may insist that "there is no quantum world" (an endorsement of instrumentalism if ever I heard one) -- physics is not even
trying to get
unobservable reality right. Physics, however, like every other science, is deeply concerned about getting
observable reality right. If your tool or instrument
does not fit the observable facts (patterns on screens or whatever), you consign it to the nearest dustbin!
* To try to illustrate the absurdity of the claims, if you recall, I took matters to the other extreme from subatomic physics invoking Jane Goodall and her chimpanzees. I asked, hoping they'd see the confusion for themselves, "Are you seriously trying to tell us that Jane Goodall is
not trying to get reality right? She's not really trying to describe the behavior of
chimpanzees? Ms Goodall regards chimps as
useful fictions?", and so on.
* The results were predictable. I was accused of trolling, lying, arguing in bad faith -- all the usual slings and arrows -- shipped off to the furthest gulag posthaste, and the rest is history lol.
Oh finally, as another example of incoherency, consider the scientist who pledges allegiance to instrumentalism, and then proceeds to tell us that some subatomic particle (the Higgs boson or whatever) was recently
discovered. How a "useful fiction" can be
discovered is left as another exercise to the reader.
) dating back to 2017. I hope he/she won't object to my reproducing it below.
