The only prediction it had was wrong, as soon as we were able to observe it was useless. — m-theory
I think it is more accurate to say realists claim the consistency in nature is real, and hence using models with universal laws produces useful results. — m-theory
That is clearly how you prefer to frame the issue. However, nominalists do not dispute that "using models with universal laws produces useful results"; what they dispute is that those laws are real apart from how we use them. — aletheist
This is exactly how I see it, too.We maintain our current beliefs until such anomalies create the irritation of genuine doubt, which compels us to undertake inquiry in an effort to reestablish the equilibrium of stable beliefs. — aletheist
I lean toward realism myself, but the usefulness of our models is not sufficient by itself to demonstrate that realism is true and nominalism is false. — aletheist
Would you agree that many metaphysical debates are debates about how to best name the shared experiences that the discussion takes for granted as a condition of its possibility? — R-13
I think that Peirce would disagree. He categorized all brute facts of existence under 2ns, but all generals under 1ns (qualities) and especially 3ns (regularities). — aletheist
Nominalism cannot be falsified, it cannot be true or false. — m-theory
Why should nominalism be taken seriously? — m-theory
No, because characterizing the subject matter of metaphysical debates as merely how to name things sounds like presupposing nominalism. — aletheist
Again, I used "brute fact" in it is usual philosophical sense. — apokrisis
We employ the words "exist" and "real" without worry in ordinary life. — R-13
Some version of nominalism may be true — aletheist
How would you propose this could be demonstrated? — m-theory
I think that we philosophical types have very little genuine doubt about the meaning of "real" and "exist" in given particular contexts. — R-13
What does "ordinary life" have to do with philosophy? I say that only slightly tongue-in-cheek. "Ordinary life" is a matter of employing habits based largely on instincts and sentiments, rather than philosophical or even scientific theories. — aletheist
Would you say that you are not terribly interested in philosophy as the pursuit of wisdom? — R-13
I'd describe it as thinking about thinking in the pursuit of the good life and the improvement of one's character. — R-13
I see this as primarily a matter of cultivating practical wisdom (phronesis) - i.e., good judgment in the form of good habits of feeling (esthetics), action (ethics), and thought (logic) - rather than just intellectual wisdom (sophia). Instincts, sentiments, common sense, tradition, etc. are all better guides than philosophy for that pursuit, especially since we often have to make decisions without taking the time to work out a comprehensive theory. — aletheist
The importance of this practical wisdom, though, is one of the things that thinking about thinking can clarify. — R-13
Nominalism cannot be falsified, it cannot be true or false. — m-theory
A tautology (e.g., "all nominalists are nominalists") cannot be falsified, and yet is trivially true - in fact, necessarily true. Therefore, it is not the case that something that cannot be falsified cannot be true or false. Some version of nominalism may be true, in which case realism is false; or some version of realism may be true, in which case nominalism is false; and this binary obviously does not exhaust the possibilities.
Why should nominalism be taken seriously? — m-theory
You will have to ask a nominalist. Paging Terrapin Station ... — aletheist
For example, I have been working for a while on adapting Peirce's "logic of inquiry" in science to identify a "logic of ingenuity" in my profession of engineering. — aletheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.