Realism vs. Anti-realism

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Celsus

Philosophy
"Realism vs. Anti-realism" (or Scientific realism vs. something or other) If I have the time, possibly in a few months' time, I might be interested in taking an anti-realist position on the condition that Hugo Holbling takes the realist one. ;)

Sold: it's alot more interesting and challenging to debate positions we don't necessarily hold. It'll have to wait until i get back from NZ but i look forward to it. Stand by for a realist broadside, Feyerabend-style! :D

On a related note, i'll be happy to take on any position - however hopeless - if any of you want to bash a particular nonsense, with the caveat that it'll have to wait until September time. :)

[Celsus]

Excellent Hugo! September sounds good to me--I need a couple months to digest Fuller, Lakatos, Feyerabend (almost done, btw--now at chapter 17) and Laudan... Sometime in a couple months' time then, I'll post some sort of challenge.

[Hugo Holbling]

Would you care to suggest some kind of statement or resolution to be debated, Joel?

[Celsus]

Hi Hugo,

Er... That will be a little difficult since I haven't even decided which antirealist or irrealist strand to take yet. Probably something from Laudan or Fuller (the nihilist social constructivists are a bit too repulsive for me, even given the style of debate we'll having). One thing is that they will probably be still strongly pro-science (sorry :)). So, first I have to finish those 4 books (Fuller will be the hardest), then I have to decide on a position and then I have to post some sort of a proposition. Also, I don't want it to be too much of a polemic--more a dialogue, so no "Resolved that Realism is nonsensical bullshit"-style propositions. ;) I'll get to your email as soon as I can...

Joel

[Hugo Holbling]

I'd like to avoid polemic as well, so no arguments there. Even so, i'll need some advance indication of what you hope to consider so i can re-read the works you'll be referencing, etc. I also need to plan where i can slip in a reference to post-structuralism to give a nod to our favourite lurker... ;)

Which Fuller or Laudan are you reading? Do you want to propose some guidelines for the debate itself?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

As requested, I've split the debate topics thread to allow Celsus and Hugo Holbling discuss a potential debate on realism vs. anti-realism. :)

Jason

[Hugo Holbling]

Thanks for the split thread, Nightshade. :) I'd like to post a few thoughts now on the format of any debate and invite your comments.

Firstly, i hope we can keep our discussion slightly less formal than would usually be applicable; i.e. i can respond with "you said x", instead of "Joel said x". This is principally because neither of us holds the position we will be defending, as i'll explain further shortly.

Secondly, i am opposed to word limits for submissions because there will be much to be gained by quoting papers and authors, particularly on Joel's part. Many concepts we consider may be unfamiliar to some readers and it will be helpful to set the scene - again, this is very much a public exercise (as i see it), rather than a cloistered splitting of hairs. If our posts are too long to the point of being ridiculous, i'm sure you will be able to trim them down as appropriate, perhaps in consultation with us by PM.

Next, i would be grateful if there is no set time-limit for submissions, due entirely to the nature of my work. I propose the following format for the conduct of our debate to take this into account:


I will post an introduction, setting out the nature of the discussion and explaining why we have chosen (at my insistence) to adopt positions we don't hold. I have a vague hope that this will encourage others to do similarly as it will undoubtedly prove an intellectual challenge.

Joel and i will submit an opening statement, setting out as best we can the reasons for supposing realism and anti-realism to be worth considering. These will likely be lengthy and - with your permission - should be posted simultaneously.

We each then offer a rejoinder to certain points we find in need of rebuttal, again posted at the same time. This method will avoid the need to change a submission at the last moment to take account of new points.

This process continues for a set number of rounds - not too many, i would suggest.

We each submit a concluding statement, offering no new material or critique but merely providing a summary of how our respective positions have fared.


I am thoroughly opposed to any form of jury or evaluation of the debate because honour dictates that i will declare Joel the victor regardless; moreover, this issue is not even close to resolution at the academic level and hence any scoring here will be of little interest in what is supposed to be an intellectual exercise, rather than a battle to the death.

It would be good to see a thread opened in an appropriate forum for discussion of our progress, but i would like to participate in it myself and i wonder if this is permitted while the debate is ongoing?

Since this is more than enough for now, i leave my suggestions to your wisdom, Nightshade, and again thank you (and Joel) for this opportunity. I only apologise that it will have to wait until September time. :)

[Silent Dave]

Hugo--

Looks good for the most part. The only real issue I have is with word count. You want an unlimited word count, and I am not inclined to grant that. We set it at 5,000 words (and there was even talk to have it less than that) both to encourage economy of language and to avoid boring the other IIDBers to death. Otherwise, as I think it was Celsus who pointed out, we risk results such as the Metacrock/Gurder debate. Have a look. It's not pretty.

Formality, whatever the two of you decide is fine with me. You want unlimited deadlines between statements, and I don't have a huge problem with that -- but if one person has had their statement ready for a month and the other hasn't said a word, we might just have to haunt him. ;)

Posting your statements consecutively is fine. Posting an introduction is fine, as long as Celsus either consents to the introduction as written, or agrees in advance that Hugo will have total editorial control over the introduction.

You don't want a jury or evaluation panel, and that's fine -- no debates are judged or evaluated anyway, unless the debators ask for it to be so.

Finally, you want to participate in the peanut gallery thread. Well, there's no rule against it, and we FD mods couldn't stop you anyway -- but I would advise against it, simply becaue the formal debate might spill over into it and lose cohesion.

So, here are the preliminary parameters as I understand them:

(a) Topic: Realism vs. Anti-realism.
(b) Participants: Hugo Hobling to defend realism, Celsus to defend anti-realism.
(c) Scope: Whatever fits in what is basically an intellectual exercise.
(d) Length of debate: Introduction to be posted by Hugo, followed by an as-yet-undetermined set number of rounds.
(e) Statements to be made consecutively following the intro.
(f) Maximum length of each statement: 5,000 words.
(g) Maximum time between statements: None.
(h) Outside sources: ?
(i) Starting date: Sometime in September?
(j) Additional rules: The closing statement will contain no new material or critique, but will simply summarize the debater's position.


No big hurry, obviously, but once you guys have these parameters hammered down you can submit your official Request. :)


Dave

[Hugo Holbling]

Thanks for your comments, Dave. I agree to the word limit and i only ask for no deadline on submissions because my job means i could be tasked elsewhere at short notice; i don't anticipate any problems, but it's wise to point it out beforehand. With regard to an introduction, it may be just as well that one of the moderators says a few words - my point is that i want it to be quite clear that debates can be seen as intellectual exercises rather than contests and can be between participants who hold conflicting views to those they choose to defend. You'll have to forgive this strange insistence, but i often get tired of seeing my efforts to take on hopeless positions ignored hereabouts (which reminds me that i need to stick up for the fundamentalists some more...).

I take your point about the peanut gallery so i'll leave it and perhaps offer some remarks after the conclusion of our discussions here. Finally, Joel may not necessarily plump for anti-realism so the topic should be left open for the time being: "realism versus something else" will have to do.

Thanks again for your input, and to all the moderators for allowing this opportunity - as i should have said before.

[Bill]

Personally, I was converted to the anti-realist side of things by the minimalist arguments of Michael Luntley in Language, Logic and Experience (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=692), which is (unfortunately) out of print. Nonetheless, if you can find a copy, I think it presents an excellent argument in favor of anti-realism that avoids a lot of the side avenues of objections that many of the other arguments seem to get caught up into.

== Bill

[Hugo Holbling]

I'll probably be using Luntley's work myself as i struggle to find ways to support realism, so you may be interested in any critique i can offer. I presume we'll see you in the peanut gallery too?

On a related note, what do you think of my hope that more people will be encouraged to debate positions they don't necessarily hold (explicitly, in this case)? It could be i'm slowly cracking...

[Celsus]

Ok apologies for the delayed response... A few minor things to mention: I really do think a 5000 word limit is more than sufficient per post (frankly, you probably won't see me nearing that any time soon). Also, I suggested this in the Moderators Forum when this Formal debates section was being set up because I felt that debates weren't supposed to bore people to death, and beyond that, it allows too much of the possibility to stray from the main topic. Conciseness isn't one of my strong points either, but it's worth making the effort for (though 5000 words is hardly concise :))

I know quite of side issues may be potentially raised in the course of the debate--these will have to be dealt with outside the thread as subtopics, and I apologise in advance in saying that I will probably not be participating in them unless I have a strong personal interest in it.

So:
(a) Topic: Realism vs. Anti-realism.
(b) Participants: Hugo Hobling to defend realism, Celsus to defend anti-realism.
(c) Scope: Whatever fits in what is basically an intellectual exercise.
(d) Length of debate: Introduction to be posted by Hugo, followed by an as-yet-undetermined set number of rounds.
(e) Statements to be made consecutively following the intro.
(f) Maximum length of each statement: 5,000 words.
(g) Maximum time between statements: None.
(h) Outside sources: ?
(i) Starting date: Sometime in September?
(j) Additional rules: The closing statement will contain no new material or critique, but will simply summarize the debater's position.
For (d), I'm agreeable with setting no fixed number of rounds, but a maximum of 10 simply because it will need to come to an end eventually (at one post a week between us, that could still take well over 2 months).

For (h) I'd prefer a rough maximum of 20% of post length, though not strictly rigid. One additional rule I'd like to ask: (j) References are enclosed by the {list}Paragraph{/list} commands so that we can easier differentiate replies to points and quotes of reference materials (see below on the bibliography I'll be using).

My rough bibliography at the moment is:

Yuri Balashov & Alex Rosenberg (ed.), 2002, Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings, Routledge

Particularly Part IV, Scientific Realism; Part V, Testing and Confirmation of Theories; and Part VI, Science in Context: The Challenge of History and Sociology. You might consider Ernan McMullin's "A Case for Scientific Realism" which is partially a reply to Larry Laudan's "A Confutation of Convergent Realism".

James R. Brown, 2001, Who Rules in Science?: An Opinionated Guide to the Science Wars, Harvard University Press

I know this is an introduction, but he bothers to explain the myriad of positions simply and fairly. In other words, I will likely use him when describing a position.

Paul Feyerabend, 1975 (2002 reprint), Against Method, Verso.

Of course.

Steve Fuller, 2000, Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times, University of Chicago Press

I'll be trolling this book for ideas and hopefully a position to take--the breadth of scope in here is amazing. Note that I haven't finished it yet.

Paul R. Gross & Norman Levitt, 1994, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, John Hopkins University Press

Erm, used so that I remember what to avoid.

Larry Laudan, 1996, Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory Method and Evidence, Westview Press

If I don't find any position in Fuller that I am interested in taking, I'll take Laudan's position. This book is expensive though.

Matteo Motterlini (ed.), 1999, For and Against Method, Chicago University Press

Obviously haven't read this yet, but will surely be employed sometime...

Peter Sloterdijk (trans. Michael Eldred), 1988, Critique of Cynical Reason, Verso

From our favourite lurker's library, may or may not be employed (it's awfully thick, and I've only skimmed it, though I fully intend to read it eventually). Just a warning... :)

Lawrence Cahoone (ed.), 1996, From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology, Blackwell Publishers

A number of useful essays here, including a snippet of Kuhn (I haven't actually read Structure before :p). David R. Griffin, 1988, "The Reenchantment of Science" originally from The Reenchantment of Science Section 1 and 3 (pp.2-8; 22-30) could possibly feature. Again, this book is thanks to our favourite lurker.

And finally:

Ziony Zevitt, 2003, Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches, Continuum

Just kidding. :)

Anything else that comes up--possibly on the internet will be linked to where possible. Alan Sokal's page (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/) is one such resource owing to the enormous number of linked papers and articles to be found there from just about any position (unfortunately, a number of links are down).

And as an aside, do you (or anybody) know if Richard Dawkins is an instrumentalist? Because it sure as hell sounds like it in Unweaving the Rainbow.

Now I've shown you mine, you show me yours. :) Oh by the way, thanks for the recommendation Bill. Unfortunately, it appears to be out of stock at Amazon (can't buy used copies to Singapore). I'm sure Hugo has more suggestions for me...

Joel

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Celsus
Now I've shown you mine, you show me yours.

Will do, but first:

Peter Sloterdijk (trans. Michael Eldred), 1988, Critique of Cynical Reason, Verso

This is incredible - i thought i was the only person (barring Feyerabend) with this work. Tell our favourite lurker i have commented approvingly on their taste in books. ;)

Now; i shall re-read the following during my trip and may quote or refer to them throughout:

Feyerabend, Philosophical Papers (both volumes), CUP, 1985;

Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, CUP, 1978, and Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (co - Ed. Musgrave), CUP, 1970;

Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Princeton, 1992 ed;

Giere, Science Without Laws, UCP, 1999;

Marsonet (Ed.), The Problem Of Realism, Ashgate, 2002;

Alston (Ed.), Realism and Antirealism, Cornell, 2003;

Niiniluoto, Critical Scientific Realism, OUP, 2002;

Van Fraassen, Laws and Symmetry, OUP, 1989 (2003 ed).

I may also use some of my textbooks and the resources of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science, but they may not be necessary. ;) I shouldn't think i'll require Popper. :rolleyes:

If i have missed the boat with a work that should've been on my list, i hope someone will let me know. I suggest you dip into Putnam and Goodman. Did i catch an implicit agreement that i should submit an introduction to the problem of realism? If so, i'll e-mail it to you for perusal and correction before offering it to the mods. :)

Unfortunately i can't say whether Dawkins is an instrumentalist since i tend to avoid his divisive rhetoric.

[Celsus]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
This is incredible - i thought i was the only person (barring Feyerabend) with this work. Tell our favourite lurker i have commented approvingly on their taste in books. ;)
I doubt I'll have to tell her. Rest assured she knows all about you, and this thread. I'm somewhat unsurprised that you'd have a book like that one...
<snip>
Did i catch an implicit agreement that i should submit an introduction to the problem of realism? If so, i'll e-mail it to you for perusal and correction before offering it to the mods. :)
That sounds fine... (heh, more work for you) But I still haven't decided on my position yet (and we've still got over a month to go, so don't rush it). Should we hold a tentative starting date for the second weekend of September, or is that too soon for you?

Joel

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Celsus
Should we hold a tentative starting date for the second weekend of September, or is that too soon for you?

One week later, please: i'll still be shattered from the time difference. :)

I may add another book to my references, now that i've finally received the masterpiece:

Olby (Ed.), Companion to the History of Modern Science, Routledge, 1990.

I suggest that three rounds of rebuttal will be sufficient but we could decide this for ourselves privately while the debate is ongoing. What say you?

[Celsus]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
One week later, please: i'll still be shattered from the time difference. :)

I may add another book to my references, now that i've finally received the masterpiece:

Olby (Ed.), Companion to the History of Modern Science, Routledge, 1990.

I suggest that three rounds of rebuttal will be sufficient but we could decide this for ourselves privately while the debate is ongoing. What say you?
Sounds good to me: So, third weekend of September (i.e. 4th week and on) is when you'll make your opening post, right? 3 rounds might be enough, but we should leave the option open for maybe a fourth--it might help to see how far we reach in terms of debate first. Otherwise, I'm happy with the debate guidelines.

Joel

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

So with that, just to make it official, it looks like we have a formal debate in the near future:

(a) Topic: Realism vs. Anti-realism.
(b) Participants: Hugo Hobling to defend realism, Celsus to defend anti-realism.
(c) Scope: Whatever fits in what is basically an intellectual exercise.
(d) Length of debate: Introduction to be posted by Hugo, followed by an as-yet-undetermined set number of rounds (less than or equal to 10).
(e) Statements to be made consecutively following the intro (3-4 rounds for rebuttal).
(f) Maximum length of each statement: 5,000 words.
(g) Maximum time between statements: None.
(h) Outside sources: as specified in this thread
(i) Starting date: 3rd or 4th weekend of September (a specific date will be decided as the time draws near)
(j) Additional rules: The closing statement will contain no new material or critique, but will simply summarize the debater's position.

Looks good?

Jason

[Hugo Holbling]

Thanks, Jason. I apologise to everyone for the delays but i have a non-standard job and will be in NZ throughout August. The debate promises to be hard work since all my research to date merely shows realism crumbling to dust...

[Celsus]

Incidentally, a couple of realists from the field of economics that might interest you Hugo:

Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2001, How Economics Forgot History: The problem of historical specificity in social science, Routledge

Tony Lawson, 1997, Economics and Reality, Routledge

Both are critiques of current economic methodology and theory (and in my view, devastating ones), and argue for a realist position to salvage economics as a science.

Joel

[kenaz]

Originally posted by Celsus
Incidentally, a couple of realists from the field of economics that might interest you Hugo:

Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2001, How Economics Forgot History: The problem of historical specificity in social science, Routledge

Tony Lawson, 1997, Economics and Reality, Routledge

Both are critiques of current economic methodology and theory (and in my view, devastating ones), and argue for a realist position to salvage economics as a science.

Joel

Then just to ensure you have common topical ground for the debate, I would recommend you read Georges Bataille's The Accursed Share: An Essay on General Economy for a counter-realist viewpoint. It is also a critique of current economic theory, but I think you'll find the alternatives offered quite different. You know where to find the book ;)

[Celsus]

Ok one addendum on the debate that Hugo and I have agreed to via email: After 3 rounds, we'll each contribute a post on the arguments made by each other to provide some constructive criticism (since we're both more familiar with the opposite side that we're actually taking). After that, we'll make concluding remarks.

As for kenaz, thanks, cheers, gracias, etc. :p :p

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Well, it's getting a bit closer to that time. :) A month or so anyway.

I just wanted to be clear about what this means:


(e) Statements to be made consecutively following the intro (3-4 rounds for rebuttal).


Perhaps did you mean concurrently?

I was a bit confused when I thought about it a bit. Is this kind of what you both had in mind? --

1st round:
Intro - Hugo/Celsus (concurrent statements)

2nd round:
1st rebuttal - Hugo/Celsus (concurrent statements)

3rd round:
2nd rebuttal - Hugo/Celsus (concurrent statements)

4th round:
3rd rebuttal - Hugo/Celsus (concurrent statements)

5th round:
4th rebuttal - Hugo/Celsus (concurrent statements)

6th round:
Conclusion - Hugo/Celsus (concurrent statements)

Also, see our recent Debate format suggestions (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60770) thread for various formats if yours fall into one of them.


Jason

[Celsus]

Well, it was my understanding that we would only have 5 rounds and would be making posts alternately, as follows:

Intro & opening statement: Hugo
1st rebuttal: Celsus

2nd round: Hugo then Celsus

3rd round: Hugo then Celsus

4th round: we then reverse positions and critique each other's approach--i.e. I'm a realist in this round, looking at Hugo's approach, and also rebutting some of my own statements, and Hugo does the opposite by becoming an anti-realist;

Therefore:

Celsus then Hugo

[I'll try to remember to put big red letters at the top of my post to notify anyone that we've temporarily switched sides. I'll also do my best not to oppose any of Hugo's statements in this round. :)]

5th round: Concluding statements: Hugo, Celsus

Also, there may be a slight delay to the starting date as both of us are very busy. Possibly the end of September, or later (sorry).

Joel

P.S. Hugo is away at the moment in New Zealand.

[Hugo Holbling]

I am in NZ but i took a moment to check in...

I was hoping we could post concurrently - as Nightshade points out - because i want to avoid merely defending realism against anti-realist critique; instead, i had hoped the original approach would force us to make a case and oppose the converse (in the form taken).

On another note, i should be able to make a strong case for realism but i will be assuming some mathematical knowledge. The introduction i suggested was merely to set out the so-called problem of realism for those unacquainted with it; if this is reckoned superfluous then i'll drop the idea.

Back to my travels - i'll check in again later to see what the moderators and Celsus decide.

[Celsus]

Oh, ok... I'm fine with concurrent posts. By the way, exactly how much math will be involved (I'm only proficient to a very basic degree y'know)? Do you know any unicode tricks for formulae?

Joel

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hello gentlemen, :)

Any indication as to when you'd like to start the debate? In the meantime, here are the slightly amended debate parameters. I had a few questions too:

(a) Topic: Realism vs. Anti-realism.
(b) Participants: Hugo Holbling to defend realism, Celsus to defend anti-realism (reversing roles at the fourth round).
(c) Scope: Whatever fits in what is basically an intellectual exercise.
(d) Length of debate: 5 rounds.
(e) Statements to be made concurrently.
(f) Maximum length of each statement: 5000 words.
(g) Maximum time between statements: None.

I'm somewhat concerned about having no duration between concurrent statements. What do you think will be the usual time span between them?

(h) Outside sources: as specified in this thread
(i) Starting date (or the deadline for the first concurrent statements): ???
(j) Additional rules: The closing statement will contain no new material or critique, but will simply summarize the debater's position. The debate format will use concurrent statements and a role reversal format until the fourth round.


Jason

[Celsus]

We're both unfortunately quite tied down at the moment, but we expect an average of 2 weeks between posts (that's an aim of 10 weeks for the entire thread). The starting date may be pushed back, but it could be good to go by the end of this month. Hugo may have some professional commitments that might severely interfere the near future.

Joel

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi guys,

Any indication of when you'd like a start date? Of course, if you're both tied up with stuff at the moment and would like to postpone the debate to another month or date then that's okay. Please, don't feel that I'm trying to rush you or anything. That's not my intention. Please take your time. :)

Whenever you both feel ready, just let us know. :) I'll leave the ball in your court.

Jason

[Hugo Holbling]

My apologies again, Jason. If you recall our private correspondence, i can tell you i was indeed "volunteered" for that task i mentioned and won't be able to start until it's completed - probably a week into November. In the short time i have left before training begins i'd also like to discuss a few important side-issues to refer to in the debate itself; they'll likely appear in the Philosophy forum.

Joel is busy himself right now so we've agreed to try this later starting date. I'm sure it's annoying for you but it would be a shame not to be able to give the debate our full attention.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi Hugo,

No worries, there's no annoyance. :) No need to apologize.

Whenever you and Celsus feel ready, just let us know.

Jason