It was mostly the part about the better scientific backing, despite science being based in realism, what with all of that pesky empirical data. This “scientific anti-realism” or whatever people want to call it is little more than solipsism-lite. The diet coke of egocentric nonsense. It’s a great position to take, though, because you basically don’t have to prove shit if everything is just unknowable outside of self. Not a very fun way to actually live, I’ll add.
Science isn’t based in realism. Science is based on empirical observation and experimentation, and consistency through repetition and peer review. The fact that most current science is based on a certain paradigm doesn’t mean that paradigm is correct. Einstein proved that Newtonian motion, upon which all prior physics was based, was incorrect. Likewise, realism is a paradigm that can be disproven. And it has been disproven by Hoffman.
It was mostly the part about the better scientific backing, despite science being based in realism, what with all of that pesky empirical data. This “scientific anti-realism” or whatever people want to call it is little more than solipsism-lite. The diet coke of egocentric nonsense. It’s a great position to take, though, because you basically don’t have to prove shit if everything is just unknowable outside of self. Not a very fun way to actually live, I’ll add.
So yes. Piss taken. I get it. Haha.
Science isn’t based in realism. Science is based on empirical observation and experimentation, and consistency through repetition and peer review. The fact that most current science is based on a certain paradigm doesn’t mean that paradigm is correct. Einstein proved that Newtonian motion, upon which all prior physics was based, was incorrect. Likewise, realism is a paradigm that can be disproven. And it has been disproven by Hoffman.