Skip to main content

Two Tables, Three Reconciliations




There are at least three views of the relationship between the manifest world and the scientific world. 

The manifest table makes itself available to me when I sit at the chair. It is brown, firm, solid, makes a certain noise when tapped by one's fingers, and so forth. The scientific table, though, consists of some number of electrical charges whizzing about through otherwise empty space. Expand each image of the table to an image of the world.

So: what is the relationship between the two worlds/tables? As I began -- there are at least three theories extant.

1. Scientific realism. The scientific world-view is the right one. The manifest view is mere appearance, a derivative from perceptual abilities that themselves are derivatives from the competition to survive. 

2. Scientific pragmatism. The manifest view is the real one. We live, in a non-negotiable way, in its world. Science posits various theoretical agencies, like those tiny charged particles, because it is useful to do so. 

3. Supervenient realism. Reality is not binary. The manifest view supervenes upon the scientific view in a hierarchical way. So: both worlds are real, but one is more real than the other. 

 This is the subject of a new book by John Heil, of Washington University in St Louis,  Appearance in Reality, from Oxford University Press. 

Comments

  1. What does "real" mean? Does it make any difference which we label "real," or is it an arbitrary designation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At a certain point in development, a toddler might run to the protection of the nearest protective grown-up after having dreamt a disturbing dream. The grown-up will likely assure our toddler, "the monsters you saw in your dream aren't real." Our grown-up conception of the meaning of real is derived from those early comforts. Also, in the English language we refer to certain types of property as "realty." The most "real" sorts of property are the most enduring and the least mobile. The philosopher asking which table is real is extending such notions, which are themselves as enduring and fixed as land. So. What does real mean? Tara! As for how this notion of the development of the idea of the real might impact our answer to the question above: I hope to come back to this next week.

      Delete
  2. I know there are more ways than one of looking at anything. This is why we argue and disagree.
    Supervenient realism has a place, I suppose, but to claim realism of one sort is 'more real' than another is rhetorical rail-splitting. A scholar at a university worked on an idea about levels of reality years ago. I followed some of that, out of curiosity. He appeared to be thinking about something like supervenience, although I am not certain of this appearance. I guess he dropped the project. Maybe he was just tired of it, or, maybe he was struck by the futility of it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...