Comments on: Moritz Schlick, Hard-Core Realist http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/moritz-schlick-hard-core-realist/ Analytic Philosophy for Fun (not Profit) Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:16:59 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Avrom http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/moritz-schlick-hard-core-realist/comment-page-1/#comment-26 Avrom Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:41:20 +0000 http://avromandina.net/avrom/?p=125#comment-26 Well, yes, that's right, but it's putting it in a slightly less realist-sounding way. An important part of the verificationist belief system is that people who say, "OK, I guess modeling science linguistically requires saying 'electrons exist,' but do electrons *really* exist?" are talking gibberish. Having existence claims validatable through scientific methods, for a verificationist, is just what existence *is*. And yes, it means causation has to be real, at least in the simple sense (and simple senses are really the only senses verificationists admit) that sometimes events cause other events. I mean, we might be wrong about this--it might turn out that everything in the universe just happens for no reason whatsoever--but that would be an *empirical* finding (and honestly, at this point, a highly unlikely one). Well, yes, that’s right, but it’s putting it in a slightly less realist-sounding way. An important part of the verificationist belief system is that people who say, “OK, I guess modeling science linguistically requires saying ‘electrons exist,’ but do electrons *really* exist?” are talking gibberish. Having existence claims validatable through scientific methods, for a verificationist, is just what existence *is*.

And yes, it means causation has to be real, at least in the simple sense (and simple senses are really the only senses verificationists admit) that sometimes events cause other events. I mean, we might be wrong about this–it might turn out that everything in the universe just happens for no reason whatsoever–but that would be an *empirical* finding (and honestly, at this point, a highly unlikely one).

]]> By: ina http://avromandina.net/avrom/2008/12/moritz-schlick-hard-core-realist/comment-page-1/#comment-25 ina Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:12:57 +0000 http://avromandina.net/avrom/?p=125#comment-25 just to make sure i'm not missing something - embodied in that last move (all entities that scientists talk about exist) is that someone who models scientific theories linguistically, say, would need to include sentences like "electrons exist" as part of the model (or at least make it plain that those are implied by all and any statements that use nouns to describe objects). Is that right? Does this mean that causation also has to be real? just to make sure i’m not missing something – embodied in that last move (all entities that scientists talk about exist) is that someone who models scientific theories linguistically, say, would need to include sentences like “electrons exist” as part of the model (or at least make it plain that those are implied by all and any statements that use nouns to describe objects). Is that right?

Does this mean that causation also has to be real?

]]>