That, that(is not "this") is defended in "scientific realism-how science tracks the truth" and this written from a guy that haunted King's College London and the London School of Economics(1999)
amazonStathis Psillos needed a little encourgement from Richard Boyd before he felt confident to dismiss a third possibility:
quote:
“(R)ealism requires two distinct elements. It requires belief and it also requires a particular interpretation of that belief. Thus anti-realism, in particular instrumentalism, pursues the following strategy. If it does not withhold belief, then it offers instead a non-realist interpretation of the belief . But the reader will no doubt notice that there is an interesting third way. For one can go along with belief, but then simply not add on any special interpretation of it - neither realist nor anti-realist. That is the way of NOA.”
quote:
p249 Scientific Realism- how science tracks truth-
that got me hosptialized IN TRUTH.
I'll get into it but first I have to keep my own politics of this out of my interpretation of it all since this fence sitting of the 90s and internalize the lingo, IBE, UTE, EDR, NOA etc that is supposed to pass. It did not!! Boyd however is STILL on the FENCE this Londoner tried to situate and idolized nothing but the color orange. He walked past me infront of the window in front of me now last week and crossed OBSERVATIONALLY infront and back across me and could not physically make eye contact, even though I had his wife in my sights, quite clearly and fine, in front of him. NOA's ark is coming back even without the MOR(e) of NOA within.
Edited by Brad McFall, : add link
™ Version 4.2