Epistemology: How Does Realism Overcome Idealism?

[MindOverMatter]

How Does Realism Overcome Idealism?

Allot of scientists, if not all, are realists. But is this position assumed or is there in fact arguments that undermine idealism.

Is there any valid reason to be a realist, in the epistemological sense?

 

[authenticity]

How Does Realism Overcome Idealism?

Allot of scientists, if not all, are realists. But is this position assumed or is there in fact arguments that undermine idealism.

Is there any valid reason to be a realist, in the epistemological sense?

I would say that a realist and idealist are working from two different points of causation. The idealist works from the form of something, while a realist works from the point of final product.

Like if a realist and idealist were making a chair, the idealist would ask, “Does the chair meet blueprint specifications?” and the realist would ask, “If I sit on it, will the chair break?”

 

[Spock]

How Does Realism Overcome Idealism?

Allot of scientists, if not all, are realists. But is this position assumed or is there in fact arguments that undermine idealism.

Is there any valid reason to be a realist, in the epistemological sense?

Both positions start from a few basic principles, which cannot be verified or proven. The realist says that the universe simply exists, it does not require explanation, causation cannot be meaningfully defined outside the universe, our senses convey reliable information (though we are able to interpret the information incorrectly), etc… The idealist says that universe needs an explanation, that causation can be defined “outside” the universe, that our senses can only be trusted because they have been designed to do so, etc…

Neither position can “prove” its correctness, in principle. After all to “prove” something one must reduce it to something even more basic, and there is nothing “more” basic. Of course this all metaphysics, and the OP was concerned with epistemology.

And rightfully so, since the two worldviews differ significantly about the question: “how do we gain information about reality”? The realist starts with observed phenomena, makes assumptions about them (hypothesis forming) and sets out find supporting facts, or tries to find loopholes. As soon as one contradictory evidence is found, the hypothesis is discarded or modified. Nothing is “sacred” for the realist, though to overthrow really entrenched concepts needs a lot of evidence. But once the evidence is found, even the most basic assumptions will be discarded. (See the development which got rid of the concept of “ether”, or the dilemma about the wave-particle nature of light, etc.)

The idealist sometimes uses this method (mostly in everyday life), but there are certain assumptions which are never questioned. Also the main method for obtaining informaton about reality is authority driven, or “revelation” driven. One must accept these basic dogmas on faith. To doubt the basic dogmas is considered “sinful”. This is a huge difference, the true difference. Also, if the observed facts contradict the accepted dogmas, it is “too bad” for the facts, they will be either pretended not to exist or explained away. (See the problem of evil.) One more observation. The idealists pay lip service to the laws of logic, and pretend that they “honor” them. But once presented with a true logical contradiction, which undercuts their belief system, they will immediately claim a “mystery”. (See the question of trinity. To say that the same being is both one and three at the same time is the purest form of contradiction, but the idealists declare it to be a “mystery” and shrug it off.)

Sometimes an objection is uttered against the “empiricist” method, namely that the empiricist method cannot be verified empirically - and thus it is also dependent of “faith”. Of course the empiricist does not say that “everything” needs to empirically verified. No empiricist will have problem that the Pythagoras theorem cannot be emprically verified. What the empriricist does say is that hypotheses which are not part of the exact sciences must be subject to verification. And since this statement is not about the external reality, it is not subject to emprical verification.

To answer the OP’s question: there is a very good reason to be realist. The realist stance is always tentative, it is always concerned about the possible errors it may make, it has the built-in self-correction method to weed out the errors - which are bound to happen. The hypothesis forming - verification cycle assures that in the long run the errors will be eliminated. The openness about accepting that one can always make errors is its main source of strength.

Since you did not ask about the epistemological critique of idealism, I will not get into that, so I would not derail your thread.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Both positions start from a few basic principles, which cannot be verified or proven. The realist says that the universe simply exists, it does not require explanation, causation cannot be meaningfully defined outside the universe, our senses convey reliable information (though we are able to interpret the information incorrectly), etc… The idealist says that universe needs an explanation, that causation can be defined “outside” the universe, that our senses can only be trusted because they have been designed to do so, etc…

Neither position can “prove” its correctness, in principle. After all to “prove” something one must reduce it to something even more basic, and there is nothing “more” basic. Of course this all metaphysics, and the OP was concerned with epistemology.

And rightfully so, since the two worldviews differ significantly about the question: “how do we gain information about reality”? The realist starts with observed phenomena, makes assumptions about them (hypothesis forming) and sets out find supporting facts, or tries to find loopholes. As soon as one contradictory evidence is found, the hypothesis is discarded or modified. Nothing is “sacred” for the realist, though to overthrow really entrenched concepts needs a lot of evidence. But once the evidence is found, even the most basic assumptions will be discarded. (See the development which got rid of the concept of “ether”, or the dilemma about the wave-particle nature of light, etc.)

The idealist sometimes uses this method (mostly in everyday life), but there are certain assumptions which are never questioned. Also the main method for obtaining informaton about reality is authority driven, or “revelation” driven. One must accept these basic dogmas on faith. To doubt the basic dogmas is considered “sinful”. This is a huge difference, the true difference. Also, if the observed facts contradict the accepted dogmas, it is “too bad” for the facts, they will be either pretended not to exist or explained away. (See the problem of evil.) One more observation. The idealists pay lip service to the laws of logic, and pretend that they “honor” them. But once presented with a true logical contradiction, which undercuts their belief system, they will immediately claim a “mystery”. (See the question of trinity. To say that the same being is both one and three at the same time is the purest form of contradiction, but the idealists declare it to be a “mystery” and shrug it off.)

Sometimes an objection is uttered against the “empiricist” method, namely that the empiricist method cannot be verified empirically - and thus it is also dependent of “faith”. Of course the empiricist does not say that “everything” needs to empirically verified. No empiricist will have problem that the Pythagoras theorem cannot be emprically verified. What the empriricist does say is that hypotheses which are not part of the exact sciences must be subject to verification. And since this statement is not about the external reality, it is not subject to emprical verification.

To answer the OP’s question: there is a very good reason to be realist. The realist stance is always tentative, it is always concerned about the possible errors it may make, it has the built-in self-correction method to weed out the errors - which are bound to happen. The hypothesis forming - verification cycle assures that in the long run the errors will be eliminated. The openness about accepting that one can always make errors is its main source of strength.

Since you did not ask about the epistemological critique of idealism, I will not get into that, so I would not derail your thread.

Ahhh?:hypno: I wasn’t asking for a critique of religious justifications. I was talking about the relationship between idealism and realism and the justifications for those positions.
I see absolutely no reason to bring religion in to it. Idealism and realism are both philosophical positions concerning reality and knowledge. I not sure that you know what you are talking about. How embarrassing for you.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

One of the most powerful theories of the modern era is this: *If the world did not make sense, our minds would nevertheless make sense of it. * This is one of the leading ideas of idealism. It may be accurate conditionally, but the condition does not apply.

Our world does make sense. Realism doesn’t need to overcome idealism, because idealism bears the burden of proof. The world must be considered real and external, until it is proven otherwise (and no such proof will come). Some might say that the world exists in the mind of God, but that does not – contrary to popular belief – entail that the world is not objective. Idealism is nonsense.

The idealist sometimes uses this method (mostly in everyday life), but there are certain assumptions which are never questioned. Also the main method for obtaining informaton about reality is authority driven, or “revelation” driven. One must accept these basic dogmas on faith. To doubt the basic dogmas is considered “sinful”. This is a huge difference, the true difference. Also, if the observed facts contradict the accepted dogmas, it is “too bad” for the facts, they will be either pretended not to exist or explained away. (See the problem of evil.)

It may be true that many religious people are dogmatic like this, but do you really consider this idealism? Are you saying they don’t believe in an objective world? This seems to be a rather extravagant claim.

The scholastic movement is not without its flaws, but it drove away much of the anti-scientific streak in Catholicism. This streak returned (to some degree) with the Renaissance, but today there are large portions of Christianity that agree with just about every scientifically respectable theory.

Also, how exactly is the problem of evil a new problem that has been observed by science?

The idealist sometimes uses this method (mostly in everyday life), but there are certain assumptions which are never questioned.

Why do you assume that people you disagree with don’t doubt?

 

[Spock]

Ahhh?:hypno: I wasn’t asking for a critique of religious justifications. I was talking about the relationship between idealism and realism and the justifications for those positions.
I see absolutely no reason to bring religion in to it. Idealism and realism are both philosophical positions concerning reality and knowledge. I not sure that you know what you are talking about. How embarrassing for you.

Hardly. A spade by any other name is still a spade. I prefer not to engage in using euphemisms.

 

[Spock]

It may be true that many religious people are dogmatic like this, but do you really consider this idealism? Are you saying they don’t believe in an objective world? This seems to be a rather extravagant claim.

I never said that. Realism is materialism, which holds matter primary, and the “spirit” a product of the matter. Idealism is the opposite, it holds that the “spirit” is primary, and it created matter.

Why do you assume that people you disagree with don’t doubt?

Some may doubt about some specifics, but the underlying dogma is “untouchable”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I never said that. Realism is materialism, which holds matter primary, and the “spirit” a product of the matter. Idealism is the opposite, it holds that the “spirit” is primary, and it created matter.

Idealism could almost fit that definition, although formally it is the idea that “physical” objects have no existence independent of the act of perception.

Realism is quite different, in conventional philosophical language. It means (from dictionary.com):

a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. Compare conceptualism, nominalism.
b. the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception. Compare idealism (def. 5a).

Compare: plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/

Realism is a minimalist statement about reality – that the objects of our perception, at any rate, exist. This is a far cry from saying that they are the only things that exist (roughly, materialism).

 

[Spock]

Realism is a minimalist statement about reality – that the objects of our perception, at any rate, exist. This is a far cry from saying that they are the only things that exist (roughly, materialism).

That is not correct. No materialist says that concepts, attributes, relationships do not exist. They certainly do, and they are not material objects. However, these entities do not exist apart from the material world.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That is not correct. No materialist says that concepts, attributes, relationships do not exist. They certainly do, and they are not material objects. However, these entities do not exist apart from the material world.

OK, then, I’m a materialist that believes in angels.

 

[MindOverMatter]

That is not correct. No materialist says that concepts, attributes, relationships do not exist. They certainly do, and they are not material objects. However, these entities do not exist apart from the material world.

Welcome to theism:thumbsup:

 

[Spock]

OK, then, I’m a materialist that believes in angels.

Are angels material entities? Can they be subjected to empirical verification? Or are they pure mental constructs which have no referents in reality?

Welcome to theism:thumbsup:

Welcome your welcome. Of course I have no idea what you mean, but any welcome is to be cherished.

 

[Matthias123]

No materialist says that concepts, attributes, relationships do not exist. They certainly do, and they are not material objects. However, these entities do not exist apart from the material world.

You say:

1. concepts, attributes and relationships exist
2. They are not material
3. They are part of the material world.

This does not compute. How can something immaterial exist as a part of a purely material world?

1. Material things exist.
2. Immaterial things exist.
3. Therefore the world is not purely material, but exists as a superposition of material and immaterial. Thus making it partially material.

 

[Spock]

You say:

1. concepts, attributes and relationships exist
2. They are not material
3. They are part of the material world.

This does not compute. How can something immaterial exist as a part of a purely material world?

1. Material things exist.
2. Immaterial things exist.
3. Therefore the world is not purely material, but exists as a superposition of material and immaterial. Thus making it partially material.

OK, let’s examine these immaterial entites.

1. Distance. It is not an ontological object. It is a relationship between 2 ontological objects.
2. Before and behind. These are not ontological objects. They are positions based upon a specific point of observation.
3. Abstactions. The concept of a chair. There is no ontological object called an abstract chair, it exists as a mental image, based upon actual chairs.
4. Warm and cold. Not ontological objects. They describe our subjective feelings based upon the Brownian motion of molecules.
5. Movement. It is not an ontological object, it is an action performed by ontological objects.
6. Imaginary objects, the products of our imagination. Literary characters, symphonies. The same applies.

I could go on and one… but I am sure you see the picture. The relationships, attributes, concepts are all part of the material world, but none of them are physical, ontological entities. The attributes and relationships describe ontological entities. Fictional, imaginary entities are the product of our minds.

This does not make the world “dual” in nature. Without material objects there is no “distance”, “movement”, etc… These categories are all dependent of material objects, even though they are not material objects themselves. Are we in synch now?

The point of contention would be in the phrase: “exists”. This is the basic concept which needs to be agreed upon.

 

[tonyrey]

It is impossible for realism to overcome idealism because we are all in the egocentric predicament. All our knowledge stems from our knowledge of our thoughts, feelings, sensations and decisions. We infer the existence of external reality from our experience of sense data but we have direct knowledge of our mental activity. Our primary datum is not the physical world but our inner world.

Even so there is no reason to suppose external reality is an illusion because we also infer the existence of other minds which have similar experiences to ours. Why would we all have the same illusions? It is possible of course that our mind is the only reality. In fact the principle of economy favours solipsism - the hypothesis that I and I alone exist. “Sorry, folks! You are only figments of my imagination!”

It would be interesting to examine the implications of solipsism but that is not the topic. It is more relevant to ask how **we **established the principle of economy? Not by ourselves! (at least not my mind, I hope… It would be a rather lonely existence! )

Why should economy be the most important principle? Surely adequacy comes first. The richness, variety and uniformity of sense data seem to be evidence that one mind is not the only mind.

So which came first, minds or physical objects? Epistemological priority does not entail ontological priority. In other words, the fact that our knowledge begins with ourselves does not imply that we exist before anything else. Yet to degrade the mind and explain mind in terms of matter is to put the cart before the horse. There is no evidence that matter has produced mind - nor is there evidence that mind has produced matter - but there is evidence that mind is more powerful than matter. So it is reasonable to believe both the cart and the horse are produced by a Reality which is more akin to mind than matter.

 

[Spock]

There is no evidence that matter has produced mind - nor is there evidence that mind has produced matter - but there is evidence that mind is more powerful than matter.

Well, the observations of neuroscience are rather compelling. The fact that the brain can overcome some kinds of injuries is compelling, too. The experiments of splitting the brain into halves (not science fiction at all) also point to the fact that mind is the activity of the brain. We have come a long way from the ancient Greeks who surmised that the brain is just a cooling organ for the blood - but then again, since Aristotele is in such high regard, I am not very surprised that such outdated ideas might be entertained as well.

On the other hand, there absolutely no evidence for the mind produces matter. The mind alone cannot even influence matter. Just try to sit in front of a super-sensitive medical scale, capable of measuring millionths of grams, and attempt to swing it out of balance using your mind powers alone. I predict that you will fail.

As for evidence that the mind is more powerful than matter, I wonder what do you have in mind…

 

[tonyrey]

Well, the observations of neuroscience are rather compelling. The fact that the brain can overcome some kinds of injuries is compelling, too. The experiments of splitting the brain into halves (not science fiction at all) also point to the fact that mind is the activity of the brain.

It merely points to the fact that the brain is an instrument used by the mind.

On the other hand, there absolutely no evidence for the mind produces matter.

There is absolutely no evidence that matter produces mind.

The mind alone cannot even influence matter.

That is an assumption that cannot be substantiated.

Just try to sit in front of a super-sensitive medical scale, capable of measuring millionths of grams, and attempt to swing it out of balance using your mind powers alone. I predict that you will fail.

The fact that I (or you) cannot do it is not proof that no one can do it.

As for evidence that the mind is more powerful than matter, I wonder what do you have in mind…

Hypnosis is one example. Physical changes in the body have been caused by the power of suggestion. Meditation is another. The success of science is another. No achievement by inanimate objects is comparable…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Are angels material entities? Can they be subjected to empirical verification? Or are they pure mental constructs which have no referents in reality?

You seem to be assuming that all material entities are subject to empirical verification, but science can prove no such thing. We are limited by our senses, and we have no idea what exists in the world that cannot be perceived by the senses.

 

[Spock]

It merely points to the fact that the brain is an instrument used by the mind.

How? Magic?

There is absolutely no evidence that matter produces mind.

Only the discoveries of medical science… Mapping brain activities to frames of mind… Millions of pieces of actual physical evidence. They can be reproduced. Is there evidence that the brain is more than a cooling organ for the blood?

That is an assumption that cannot be substantiated. The fact that I (or you) cannot do it is not proof that no one can do it.

Let’s apply your reasoning to gravity. We only have a few quadrillion experiments that gravity exists. By your reasoning that is not a compelling evidence. Maybe gravity is just an illusion, it may be of a product of an assumed “mind”. My friend, your reasoning is not just inadequate, it is plain nonsensical.

Hypnosis is one example. Physical changes in the body have been caused by the power of suggestion. Meditation is another. The success of science is another.

All of them are physical activities. The mind alone cannot produce any physical effects. Show one example to the contrary.

 

[Areopagite]

All right, Mr. Spock, I got a thing or two to say to you…

Realism is materialism, which holds matter primary, and the “spirit” a product of the matter. Idealism is the opposite, it holds that the “spirit” is primary, and it created matter.

There are many realist philosophers who would not think that that matter is primary to spirit, at least depending one what you mean by primary. Aristotle being one, of course. Yet, he is definitely called a realist. You seem to be changing the definition of realism as its been traditionally used.

Are angels material entities? Can they be subjected to empirical verification? Or are they pure mental constructs which have no referents in reality?

Angels are definitely not material and thus cannot be subjected to empirical verification. However, you could also say that some people could deny the existence of Asia if they are unable to verify it empirically … you know, if they can’t afford to travel there and see it for themselves. Also, you could say that Alexander the Great never existed … because he cannot be empirically verified. So, all I’m saying is that just because you can’t empirically verify something doesn’t mean you are impelled to disbelieve its existence.

1. Distance. It is not an ontological object. It is a relationship between 2 ontological objects.
2. Before and behind. These are not ontological objects. They are positions based upon a specific point of observation.
3. Abstactions. The concept of a chair. There is no ontological object called an abstract chair, it exists as a mental image, based upon actual chairs.
4. Warm and cold. Not ontological objects. They describe our subjective feelings based upon the Brownian motion of molecules.
5. Movement. It is not an ontological object, it is an action performed by ontological objects.
6. Imaginary objects, the products of our imagination. Literary characters, symphonies. The same applies.

I might be misunderstand what you mean by “ontological object” … I assume it means the object of ontology … and object studied by ontology would be being. A being, unless you are re-defining it, is “that which can exist.” Then, you claim that distance, before and behind, abstractions, warm and cold, movement, and imaginary objects are not ontological objects. In other words, they aren’t beings. In other words, they can’t exist. In other words, they don’t exist. However, you also say …

No materialist says that concepts, attributes, relationships do not exist. They certainly do, and they are not material objects.

So, here you are saying that concepts, attributes, and relationships DO exist, but in that other quote you deny that they are beings, indicating that they can’t exist. What’s going on here?

There is no ontological object called an abstract chair, it exists as a mental image, based upon actual chairs.

So you are saying that abstractions exist as mental images. I will also assume, correct me if I’m wrong, that you mean abstractions are mental images (otherwise I don’t know what you’re talking about). How is a mental image abstract? I mean, a mental image is an image, right? There are images all over the place, but not all of them are abstractions. Also, there could be two radically different looking chairs, but with understanding the abstract notion of a chair, I can identify them as chairs. But how does just having a mental image of a particular chair necessarily enable me to relate it universally to all chairs? There must be something else going on here.

Well, the observations of neuroscience are rather compelling. The fact that the brain can overcome some kinds of injuries is compelling, too. The experiments of splitting the brain into halves (not science fiction at all) also point to the fact that mind is the activity of the brain. We have come a long way from the ancient Greeks who surmised that the brain is just a cooling organ for the blood - but then again, since Aristotele is in such high regard, I am not very surprised that such outdated ideas might be entertained as well.

I actually don’t know what Aristotle said about the actual organ of the brain, but all his epistemological claims do not conflict with neuroscience, I was very surprised to find out. For example, he said that mental images, reflexes, instincts, emotions, memory, and even imagination are all based in the bodies and are material phenomenon. However, he said that abstractions, that is, finding the meaning of the mental images that come from our senses and/or imagination is only possible with the intellect, which, he said, is immaterial. The intellect is a power of the soul and not the body, he said. It makes a fair deal of sense, too, because material cannot provide immaterial abstractions by just showing a material mental image. Just because I have a mental image in my head, I might not necessarily abstract its meaning.

Nonetheless, Aristotle claimed all knowledge comes from the senses, for we need those mental images so our intellect can abstract concepts from them. We need not only the senses, but the brain to process the sense impulses into mental images. It is also true that we need to recall mental images from our mental storage in our brain (memory) in order to re-understand the concepts that we abstracted from them. The material and the immaterial work hand-in-hand … it’s a theme that makes us human.

Anyway, if you can address what you mean by an ontological object, and how a mere mental image equates to an abstract concept and understanding that would be good.