Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Scientific Realism
Scientific Realism
25-11-2005
Essay 1
Wijsgerige Vorming
Chimed Jansen
Chimed.jansen@gmail.com
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . 3
Scientific Realism . . . . . . . . 4
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . 8
Bibliography . . . . . . . . 9
2
Introduction
Scientific Realism is the major philosophy of scientists in regard to the relation between
scientific theory and reality. There are however, differences amongst scientific theories
as to how well they fit the mold of scientific realism. Atomic theory has proven to be a
powerful evangelical theory for scientific realism within the scientific world. It meets all
the premises of scientific realism and is a fundamental theory in many fields of science.
However moving to moving to the peripheral theory of superpositions in quantum
mechanics, studied exclusively within physics, applying the theory to scientific realism
becomes more problematic. Can scientific realism still maintain tenability in light of
experimental evidence for the existence of a superposition state? To answer this question
we need to explore what scientific realism entails and the extent to a conflict is existent in
the theory of superposition states. This essay explores scientific realism as a philosophy
and applies these two theories to the premises it sets out.
For the idealist the sound cannot be separated from the experience of the sound and
therefore there is no sound. The idealists accept that all perceptions of the ‘external
world’ are in fact creations of the mind and conclude that all experiential phenomenon
are therefore dependent on a perceiver. A more extreme idealist viewpoint is that without
a perceiver the tree ceases to exist at all. In this case the idealist accepts that without the
perceiver the ‘treeness’ of the tree does not exist and therefore the tree as a whole does
not exist. They may even claim that no tree is there at all, the only tree to exist, exists in
the perceivers mind. These views are related to phenomanalism which can be viewed as
a branch of idealism. Phenomenalism holds that “to be is, to be perceived” in the view of
its founder George Berkley. 1 He proposed that the only reality that exists is experience
itself, it should be noted however that he believed in God and believed that God was
always a perceiver and therefore all things are continuously perceived and exist.
Contrasting these views are ‘naïve’ realism, or common sense realism, which holds that
there exists an external reality which is the source that causes our experiences. This
reality is considered to continue existing without our experience of it. It is the reality as
we experience it and live with it during mundane activities. Its shortcoming is its failure
to consider the psychological aspects of experience; experience is seen as a direct
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
3
perception of reality. Through the development of science and the scientific method the
criteria for what is considered a perception of reality were expended such that naïve
realism no longer formed an appropriate epistemology for scientists or their followers.
With the advent of information about phenomenon beyond direct perception through
techniques such as microscopy, radiology, spectroscopy, etc it became clear that realism
would have to be adapted to suit the expanding possibilities of ‘perception’.
Scientific Realism
The new scientific realism which resulted was not merely a development from naive
realism, but also formed a reaction to alternative theories on science. Several prominent
theories about the role of science had been developing since the scientific revolution.
With the process of the ‘enlightenment’, a term which it self implies learning the truth,
science became a powerful social force. Its strength was in discovering the ‘truth’ about
nature and applying that knowledge to advance society, a process which was greatly
aided by the evolving scientific method. During the 16th and 17th century realism was a
growing philosophy amongst scientists, however religious beliefs were still powerful and
questions on metaphysics, or those questions about unobservables, were left to be
explained by religion. However during the eighteenth century science began to delve
deep into areas previously covered by metaphysics, most prominent being the structure of
matter. The acceptance of atomic theory by the public was a major advance for science
over religion, however it brought questions about the epistemology of science.
Theories of science were advanced to understand the credibility of science and the
relationship between science and reality. Those theories on the credibility of science,
empirical theories, concerned themselves with the observable and verifiable side of
science and the correct scientific method. Theories on the relationship between science
and reality attempted to correlate the discoveries made by science with an ultimate
‘metaphysical’ reality. Scientific realism assumes that the two can be correlated and will
be (at least more closely correlated) at some later date. Instrumentalism is the main
alternative theory to scientific realism. It holds that scientific theory is simply a tool to
understand and predict phenomenon, without any claim about the truth of the theory
being possible. In other alternative theories the source of perception is questioned, with
idealists placing it in the mind, theists placing it in a God, and phenomenalists placing it
in experience itself.
4
Atomic theory is a highly defensible theory for scientific realists. A major proof of it’s
correlation to reality is the many ways through which the constant of Avogadro can be
calculated. Jean-Baptiste Perrin published the book Les Atomes in 1913 in which he
reported thirteen ways to calculate the constant of Avogadro, three of which were
discovered by him and involved Brownian motion. His own Brownian motion methods
were perhaps the most convincing as they involved directly observing the motion of
particles of different elements in water under an ultramicroscope.
The brilliant determinations of the number of atoms by Mr Perrin have completed the
triumph of atomicism. What makes it all the more convincing are the multiple
correspondences between results obtained by totally different processes. (…) The atom of
the chemist is now a reality... 2
Perrin himself was only slightly less convinced of the reality of molecules stating:
Our wonder is aroused at the very remarkable agreement found between values derived
from the consideration of such widely different phenomena. Seeing that not only is the
same magnitude obtained by each method when the conditions under which it is applied
are varied as much as possible, but that the numbers thus established also agree among
themselves, without discrepancy, for all the methods employed, the real existence
of the molecule is given a probability bordering on certainty. 3
From these quotes it’s clear that the proofs were accepted as conclusive by many at the
time. With the status of atoms accepted, chemistry itself was taken from the status of an
instrument to that of a reality. Of course not all people, or even all scientists, were
convinced. Instrumentalism, or anti scientific materialism, and idealism continued to
form opposing philosophies though they never regained their earlier credibility amongst
scientists.
2
Poincaré 1913 [1963]: 91 (Dudau 2002)
3
Perrin, J.-B. (1913), Les Atomes, Paris: Alcan. 215-216 (Dudau 2002)
5
superposition there is a probability that any of the possible states exist at any given
moment.
This state was described by Erwin Schrödinger, a central figure in the discovery quantum
mechanics, in 1935 in his classic thought experiment involving a cat. In this experiment
a cat is placed in a box with a radioactive element which has a 50% chance of decaying
and releasing a particle which would break a seal and release poison and kill the cat. As
long as the box is closed the cat in the box is sometimes alive and sometimes dead, or
50% alive and 50% dead depending on your interpretation, in either case the situation
defies logic.
Figure 1: Energy wells for current passing through a SQUID, the side images represent currents
passing in one direction, the center current passing in neither or both directions. (Leggett 2000)
the quantum level. The experiment represents “the first one in which there has been
reasonably foolproof evidence you do have a superposition of macroscopic quantum
6
states,” says Anthony J. Leggett who first devised it. 4 With the concept established let
us try to fit it to the theory of scientific realism and see how well it fits.
4
Here, There and Everywhere: A Quantum State of Mind, Kenneth Chang,The New york Times, 2000
5
The premises used here are those given at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
6
Here, There and Everywhere: A Quantum State of Mind, Kenneth Chang,The New york Times, 2000
7
Here, There and Everywhere: A Quantum State of Mind, Kenneth Chang,The New york Times, 2000
7
Conclusion
In summing up it is clear that scientific realism is logical and conceptually sound theory
to hold and highly suited to those within the scientific arena. Taking the instrumentalist
view seems to take the heart out of the science, especially with the high regard paid to the
pursuit of (true) knowledge in science. If we accept scientific realism we are committing
ourselves to certain a group of premises. When we look at atomic theory these premise
fit well and our confidence in the philosophy is deepened. In the case of superpositions,
and perhaps others phenomenon not explored in this essay (parapsychology for example),
results may conflict with the premises of the philosophy however. How do we deal with
these problems? We can ignore or deny the phenomenon as many do, or accept that the
present theory is insufficient and defer judgment. At which point does this approach
clash with scientific realism? In my opinion it is a matter of context. If a theory is
central and is tied to many others with significant practical applications, such as atomic
theory, I would argue that such a relativist treatment of the truth is unacceptable. In the
case of superpositions, or parapsychology for that matter, both of which I would consider
outside of ‘everyday’ science or experience I can accept some leniency. I think these are
cases where we have to accept that science still has a lot of work to do to bring our
current theories closer to the ideal theory. After all how close a theory is to reality is a
relative concept, so we need not let go of our belief in scientific realism just because of a
few controversial theories.
8
Bibliography
Anonymous, Epistemology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Chang, Here, There and Everywhere: A Quantum State of Mind, The New york Times,
2000, http://www.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/NYTimes/071100sci-quantum-
mechanics.html