Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Response to scientific anti-realism

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,219

    Response to scientific anti-realism

    Scientific anti-realism says that the unobservable parts of reality cannot be known through the methods of science. How would you respond to this?

    By the way, scientific realism would affirm that the unobservable parts of reality can be known through the methods of science.
    Curt

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by cih1355 View Post
    Scientific anti-realism says that the unobservable parts of reality cannot be known through the methods of science. How would you respond to this?

    By the way, scientific realism would affirm that the unobservable parts of reality can be known through the methods of science.
    In a very general way, I'd say the first statement shows that someone understands what science is. After all, if you define science as the systematic study of the observable, then you have to acknowledge that it doesn't address the unobservable.

    The caveat is that people differ on what they mean by "observable." For instance, many observations are made by inference: There is a fresh hole in a target and there was a loud bang. Someone is holding a smoking gun in the near vicinity. It would be fair to say that those observations support an inference that the hole was made by shooting a gun.

    But you can't know it with absolute certainty.
    R. Victor Bottomly
    Port Cities Reformed Baptist Church, Lewiston ID

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- How to access Politics and Government forum

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by cih1355 View Post
    Scientific anti-realism says that the unobservable parts of reality cannot be known through the methods of science. How would you respond to this?

    By the way, scientific realism would affirm that the unobservable parts of reality can be known through the methods of science.
    2 Questions:
    1)Does there need to be a response?
    2)Which level of know is being implied?
    Hermonta Godwin
    Raleigh, NC

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,219
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianTrader View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cih1355 View Post
    Scientific anti-realism says that the unobservable parts of reality cannot be known through the methods of science. How would you respond to this?

    By the way, scientific realism would affirm that the unobservable parts of reality can be known through the methods of science.
    2 Questions:
    1)Does there need to be a response?
    2)Which level of know is being implied?
    If you want to refute it, then there needs to be a response.

    I'm not sure which level of know is being implied.
    Curt

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by cih1355 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianTrader View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cih1355 View Post
    Scientific anti-realism says that the unobservable parts of reality cannot be known through the methods of science. How would you respond to this?

    By the way, scientific realism would affirm that the unobservable parts of reality can be known through the methods of science.
    2 Questions:
    1)Does there need to be a response?
    2)Which level of know is being implied?
    If you want to refute it, then there needs to be a response.

    I'm not sure which level of know is being implied.
    Okay, my question then is why do you think it needs to be refuted? Remember scientific anti-realism does not say that unobservable parts of reality cannot be known, just that they cannot be known through the methods of science.

    As an aside, presuppositional apologetics goes very closely with scientific anti-realism.

    CT
    Hermonta Godwin
    Raleigh, NC

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,219
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianTrader View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cih1355 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianTrader View Post

    2 Questions:
    1)Does there need to be a response?
    2)Which level of know is being implied?
    If you want to refute it, then there needs to be a response.

    I'm not sure which level of know is being implied.
    Okay, my question then is why do you think it needs to be refuted? Remember scientific anti-realism does not say that unobservable parts of reality cannot be known, just that they cannot be known through the methods of science.

    As an aside, presuppositional apologetics goes very closely with scientific anti-realism.

    CT
    I'm trying to figure out whether or not scientific anti-realism is true. I'm familiar with the arguments in favor of scientific anti-realism. I would like to know about the arguments that are against it.
    Curt

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by cih1355 View Post
    Scientific anti-realism says that the unobservable parts of reality cannot be known through the methods of science. How would you respond to this?

    By the way, scientific realism would affirm that the unobservable parts of reality can be known through the methods of science.
    Scientific anti-realism is in accord with the scientific method. Scientific realism is not. I would say that scientific anti-realism is science while scientific realism is an attempt by man to play God.
    Chris Thomas | Grace Reformed Baptist Church | Bonham, TX

    Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam!
    So if ye destroy the Letter of the Scripture, you do destroy the Scripture; and if you do deny the Letter, how is it possible that you should attain to the true sense thereof, when the Sense lies wrapped up in the Letters, and the words thereof?
    Samuel Rutherford - A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience
    Blog: The Biblical Thinker

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
The PuritanBoard exists to promote robust discussion of theology in a Confessionally Reformed context. The modern trend of short statements of faith belies the many places where the Scriptures teach with great clarity. Though our respective Reformed confessions sometimes disagree, we believe that Churches have been given the gifts of teachers and elders to lead to the unity of the faith and the result of that unity is a Confessional Church confessing together: "This is what the Scriptures teach." The Confessions are secondary to the authority of Scripture itself but they arise out of Scripture as a standard exposition of the Word of God.