philosophy of science dead? realism vs. empiricism (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, September 11, 2016, 13:18 (2791 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: And I am simply saying why I find the famous philosopher's use of “realist” misleading.
DAVID: All fields have their jargon.-Yes indeed. That's why some dictatorships are called democratic republics.-Dhw: …how can you possibly be an empiricist when you constantly attribute every aspect of the observable and unobservable world to a speculative and untestable hypothesis you call God? If “multiverse theory” is philosophic foolishness, then so is God - but I disagree with you on both counts. I would also add the hypothesis that there is one universe which has existed for ever, transforming energy and matter in a never-ending process. Pure speculation. Theory, not realism, and like the God and multiverse hypotheses, the exact opposite of empiricism.-DAVID: From the article: "Empirical theories are constrained by the experimental results. “Realists,” on the other hand, speculate more freely about the possible shape of the unobservable world"
 I think of myself as using experimental results to reach my conclusions, metaphysical as they might be.-Please tell us what experiments can test whether an eternal conscious mind created billions of solar systems in order to produce life on Earth, preprogrammed or dabbled the weaverbird's nest, and is hiding behind a quantum wall. -Dhw: As for the bold about the Higgs, it merely confirms what we have now agreed: Higgs completes one segment of a pattern, but we don't know the overall pattern.
DAVID: I'm glad you finally recognize it.
dhw: That's strange.....“Why all this vehement opposition to statements of mine which you then proceed to echo?” But I'm glad to finally recognize that you have finally recognized that your disagreement was in fact an agreement.-DAVID: You started the discussion with a response to my viewing the SM as a pattern which suggested a mind behind it by trying to point out all the supposed deficiencies, all of which are/were outside the accepted pattern.-We have finally agreed that the Higgs completes a segment of a pattern, and having bolded the quotes supporting the viewpoint that the SM (accepted pattern) may be defective, you have clearly recognized that the SM (accepted pattern) may be defective! I have certainly not recognized your claim that the now suspect SM strongly suggests a planning mind. But whatever the complete pattern turns out to be, I'm sure you will continue to see it as strongly suggesting a planning mind, and I will continue to offer odds of 50/50!