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.
What does "real" mean? Does it make any difference which we label "real," or is it an arbitrary designation?
ReplyDeleteAt 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.
DeleteI know there are more ways than one of looking at anything. This is why we argue and disagree.
ReplyDeleteSupervenient 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.