Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Philosophical Selections

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on September 20, 2001 01:28:43 UTC


>>>I’d agree antirealism cannot offer a ‘satisfactory’ account of science and mathematics, but only insofar as antirealism is just as limited as realism is. Neither realism nor antirealism can offer a complete account of science and mathematics as we experience them. Therefore, I ask, why offer one as the alternative for the other?>>Let’s entertain your position that antirealism’s inability to account for everything is a valid reason to complain.>>It quickly becomes evident that no satisfactory account of science can be offered by a priori, unless we can mend our logic with a few assumptions. But assumptions that a priori relies upon cannot be a priori, since otherwise these assumptions would not be assumptions, but would be, in fact, a priori. As such, a priori relies upon a posteriori.>Neither antirealism nor realism can offer a complete account of science and mathematics as we experience them. It is illogical to complain about a philosophy’s incompleteness from the position of an equally incomplete philosophy.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins