Examining the Critical Sceintific View of Ilka Niiniluoto on the Structure of Reality

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Master's degree in Philosophy of Science, Amirkabir University of Technology

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy of Science, Amirkabir University of Technology

10.22061/orj.2024.2066

Abstract

If we consider the belief in the existence of something independent of the mind, regardless of why and how it is, the most minimal claim of the ontological realist point of view; Many positions that are attributed to anti-realism are not anti-realist. However, different viewpoints face problems in explaining this external truth and determining the ratio of scientific knowledge to it. In the meantime, the critical point of view, in addition to believing that scientific knowledge is derived from truth independent of the mind and constant of the external world, considers it to be dependent on mental and conceptual frameworks and results in a kind of fluid ontology. Scientific activities in this approach try to validate the most available criteria to describe reality and choose the best explanation. In this article, the critical point of view and how to explain the ontological approach based on Ninilotu's theories will be discussed. Ninilotu, one of the pioneers of critical realism in the scientific field, tries to support tropical realism based on Williams's category theory by introducing tropes. Based on this, the external reality (including the external object and the partial attributes related to each object) is formed by the conceptual activities of humans and is manifested in the form of language.

Keywords

References

 
Barbour I, Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Contemporary Study in Science and Religion. London: Harper and Row,1974.
Collier A, 1998, Critical Realism, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, pp.720-722.
Dancy J, Sosa E, A Companion to Epistemology, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
Fine A, 1998, Scientific Realism and Antirealism, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis, https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/scientific-realism-and-antirealism/v-1.
Gregersen N, Huyssteen v (Editor), Rethinking Theology and Science: Six Models for the Current Dialogue, Published by Eerdmans Pub Co, 1998.
Hick J, Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion, Yale University Press, 1993.
Horwich P, 1996, Realism and Truth, Supplement: Philosophical Perspectives, no.10, pp.187-197.
Leplin J(ed), Scientisic Realism, University of California Press, Contribution by: Boyd A, Fine A, Lauden L, Putnam H, Van Frassen B, 1984.
Loux M, Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, Routledge, 2001.
Montage w.p, 1912, The New Realism and The Old, The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, Vol.9, No.2, pp. 39-46.
Niiniluoto I, Critical Scientific Realism, Oxford University Press, 1999
.
Popper K, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1972.
Putnam H, Reason Truth and History, United Kingdom, the Press Syndicate of University of Cambridge, 1981.
------------, 1973, Meaning and Reference, Journal of Philosophy, Vol 70, No 19, pp 699-711.
Williams D, 1953, On The Elements of Being, The Review of Metaphysics, Vol 7, No 1, pp.3-18.
Wittgenstein L, On Certainty, Edited by Anscombe and Wright, Translated by Paul D and Anscombe, Basil Blackwell. Oxford, 1969.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics