Great video! You gave a really clear explanation of the distinction between realist and anti-realist using mathematics. I guess the anti-realist could also be a bit of a relativist about truth in mathematics in the sense that what is true is whatever follows from a consistent set of axioms. Hence, truth is relative to the consistent axiom system we choose.
Great video! Please keep them coming-I really enjoy your content. Have you read The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch? I’m curious to hear your thoughts on his Popperian, fallibilistic views, as well as his critique of justificationism (justified true belief)
One article I recommend in Rorty's "Solidarity or Objectivity", which defends the anti-realist side. Thomas Nagel's "The Last Word" can be read as defending realism. I believe Michael Dummett has also written about this topic. This blog post of mine might also be of interest to you: lilith.cc/~victor/dagboek/index.php/2022/10/11/anti-realism-and-the-decline-of-truth/
Isn’t the Gödel sentence true, but improvable? Is this why formalism, the idea that mathematical provability is mathematical truth, isn’t popular anymore?
It's certainly a problem for formalism! It's not necessarily a problem for anti-realism, since the Gödel sentence is provable -- just not in the particular formalism we are looking at. An anti-realist doesn't have to claim that mathematical truth is provability *in one particular formalism* or *relative to a formalism*. But the formalist is usually taken to claim precisely that, which means that they'll have to find a way to deal with Gödel... and it's not precisely obvious how to do that.
Thank you for your response. However, doesn’t this make truth relative? According to the method of trusting moral intuition, murder is wrong, according to the method of believing the negation of a ethically intuitive premise, murder is obligatory. According to ZFC, there are infinite prime numbers, but according to a finitist axiomatic system, which allows for no infinities, there are finite prime numbers. Any belief forming process can be a method, wishful thinking, biblical interpretation, etc. Does anti-realism about truth not collapse into relativism?
@@davidzuilhof2272 It doesn't have to. Antirealists can believe that there is a single correct method (in a particular domain), and their arguments to privilege one method over others can be identical to those of realists. It may help to see that there's a symmetric danger for realists. If you're an antirealist and you don't think one method can be argued to be the best, you collapse into relativism. If you're a realist and you don't think one method can be argued to be the best, you collapse into skepticism (for there's a reality, but you don't know how to get there).
I appreciate your answer, thanks!!! That makes sense, I’m going to think about this a bit more. Is your personal view on scepticism similar to Robert Stern’s? You seem sympathetic to his (Kantian) direction, but I might misinterpret you
A little question for the antirealists. How is an antirealist going to determine that a certain method of investigating reality is the "best" one. It's best in relation to which parameters? And how is he able to "go meta" and establish those parameters, if the first and primary thing is the norm itself?
Yeah. Good questions. But how is the realist going to determine that a certain method of investigating reality is the one that gets us to actual reality? How is he going to establish that without presupposing that his current methods are what gets us to reality? I'm not asking those questions as a rhetorical trick. I think the realist and the anti-realist are *in the exact same boat* when it comes to answering these questions. What can we do, except use our current standards to improve those very standards?
@@VictorGijsbers I suppose that for a realist there is no method before reality: the ens precedes the thought, thinking is always about being. So, we can be sure that if we think it's because we already have somewhat of a grasp on (or maybe an intimate connection to) reality.
It seems that one cannot distinguish the truth realist vs the truth anti-realist by their behaviors (outside of debating realism/antirealism) - both will produce the same math and science. In which case the realism/anti-realism difference regarding truth is doing no work. Its a difference that makes no difference. Is this a reasonable inference?
Some pragmatists might say that, but I think there can be a big difference in philosophy, which in turn influences other things. Even Rorty, a pretty thoroughgoing pragmatist, thought the difference could make a difference, because realism tells us to submit to a nonhuman authority and antirealism makes us fully responsible ourselves. Rorty thought this distinction can have ramifications in ethics and politics. Or take, for a totally different example, one's attitude to the continuum hypothesis in mathematics. The antirealist will think we've got a free choice to accept it, the realist will yearn for an insight into its truth or falsity.
@@VictorGijsbers I'm a psychologist very interested in metaphysics. My understanding is that realism orientates toward some sort of singular account of humanity / identity, whereas anti realism opens up multiple possible and competing contextual accounts of identity. Is that right? It opens up more space to potentially contest what our 'best methods' are. Or is this too far in the direction of 'relativism'. Love the channel, especially metaphysics and postmodernism content.
In terms of mathematical reality, I imagine it could be possible to show that some conjectures are inherently unprovable, so that this could be a feature of the reality. For physical realism, I guess that realists are unlikely to accept the hypothesis that a do-nothing-on does in fact do nothing, while the anti-realist will advance the hypothesis as an idea to undermine realism. I am not sure that is effective though because, it is hard to see what kind of norm or norms a do-nothing-on could arise from.
The problem that the anti-realist faces is their reliance on mere empiricism as means for absolute truth/knowledge. A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but there are many things that are obviously the case that are not empirically verified to be so - the universals. They include numbers, the laws of logic/thought, the self/mind, time & space (see Kant's a priori metaphysic, although flawed), ethics, the past, etc. These "things" exist, but are non-material, therefore not subject to direct empirical investigation. Are they related to empirical investigation? Yes. But they are not empirically verified to exist, nor can they be.
@@VictorGijsbers I thought that the antirealist was averse to describing mathematical truth as independent of the human mind because of an empirical approach. I may have misunderstood.
I don't see how the anti-realist can claim reality is what comes out of our _best_ methods if they have no independent grounding for what constitutes a _good_ method. What's to stop them from simply asserting the current methods are the _best_ possible and therefore everything they produce is right by definition? Seems patently circular to me. It makes sense in mathematics because all systems that don't contain a contradiction are permitted. So there are no worse or better systems, they simply either contain a contradiction or they don't. But extending the anti-realist view to all of science seems to deny that their can be any progress at all in science. Isn't it all just a fad of which method is preferred for this moment?
But the realist is in exactly the same boat. For the realist *also* has no independent grounding for what constitutes a good method. They cannot step out of their method and compare its results to reality, because our method is, by definition, that which we use to judge what reality is like.
Try something new on for size. I would like to chat on your show. I am a set of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. We need to move beyond the notion of “We”. Human is a loose notion at best. In essence, the body/conduit has no fixed predicate in the abstract lens, so the premise is incorrect. What is it of us, that knows this? Until we know more, we are a set of a’ priori modes trying to stabilise our line in an ocean of dissipating variables. We should define ourselves in this manner. We are a set of modes that allow for systematic alignment. A set synthesised with realities structures and stresses. Understanding this is the next step. Everything else is tied up in a field of inverted axioms and that path is a dead end. Human is not part of the way I think. I’m beyond it. I don’t know what I am, only that I am not the body. I am a set of modes as I said and until I know more… Check out my RUclips channel. New paradigm fish by Yap. Watch the man who found the mind. Peace and love. Yap.
I agree with much of what you say here, though I think you giving an overly charitable description of the anti realism narrative that underpins western political discourse now. By juxtaposing mathematical theory throughout the discussion, I believe you are guiding a conclusion you wish the viewer to draw. The current political narratives in the West have their origins in Hegel, Rousseau, Marx, and the Marxist influenced post modern theorists like Foucault, Derrida, Bell, Kendi, Marcuse, etc. The political praxis of the academic idea of contemporary anti realism, driving the dominant progressive political discourse, is exactly the idea that the Human mind creates reality, specifically, the objective world. The Soviet Man, the End of History, and its modern relation - Intersectional Systemic Analysis, and the end of oppressor-oppressed relation. End-of-History, Intersectionality and Perfected State are all gnostic beliefs that human society are merely projections of group human psychology. The material world is a psychological hologram. This is literally what is believed. Literal telekinesis, based on antirealism. Progress is the deconstruction of human psychology to achieve the intersectional utopia. Empiricism or objectivity are not just open to a third option in antirealism - in these current world interpretations, antirealism has a spiritual, religious narrative, that humans bend the physical world with brain waves. That is the utopia described at the end of the intersectional, Hegelian or Marxian "End-of-History" rainbows. Hence "XYZ is a social construct", as a fit-all reposte in discourse. I think you are fair, but your own nuance and biases are the underpinning to lead the witness, and beg the question. It would be better to fully represent the practical results of these ideas in the political realm now, from opposing sides, as well as an academically neutral (practically impossible for humans) exploration. I don't blame you for this, but you are an Academic, in Leiden, in the Netherlands, in a 21st century Netherlands city. This is the water you swim in, so you would either be very brave, or willing to face social and financial ostracisation, in this situation, to fully flesh out the range of antirealism ideas that are adopted in our modern, western societies.
Great video! You gave a really clear explanation of the distinction between realist and anti-realist using mathematics. I guess the anti-realist could also be a bit of a relativist about truth in mathematics in the sense that what is true is whatever follows from a consistent set of axioms. Hence, truth is relative to the consistent axiom system we choose.
Great video! Please keep them coming-I really enjoy your content. Have you read The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch? I’m curious to hear your thoughts on his Popperian, fallibilistic views, as well as his critique of justificationism (justified true belief)
Sir, would you please suggest some essential readings in this topic? I am interested to know further about the debate.
One article I recommend in Rorty's "Solidarity or Objectivity", which defends the anti-realist side. Thomas Nagel's "The Last Word" can be read as defending realism. I believe Michael Dummett has also written about this topic. This blog post of mine might also be of interest to you: lilith.cc/~victor/dagboek/index.php/2022/10/11/anti-realism-and-the-decline-of-truth/
@@VictorGijsbers Thank you very much, Sir. Great help.
Isn’t the Gödel sentence true, but improvable? Is this why formalism, the idea that mathematical provability is mathematical truth, isn’t popular anymore?
It's certainly a problem for formalism! It's not necessarily a problem for anti-realism, since the Gödel sentence is provable -- just not in the particular formalism we are looking at. An anti-realist doesn't have to claim that mathematical truth is provability *in one particular formalism* or *relative to a formalism*. But the formalist is usually taken to claim precisely that, which means that they'll have to find a way to deal with Gödel... and it's not precisely obvious how to do that.
Thank you for your response. However, doesn’t this make truth relative? According to the method of trusting moral intuition, murder is wrong, according to the method of believing the negation of a ethically intuitive premise, murder is obligatory. According to ZFC, there are infinite prime numbers, but according to a finitist axiomatic system, which allows for no infinities, there are finite prime numbers. Any belief forming process can be a method, wishful thinking, biblical interpretation, etc. Does anti-realism about truth not collapse into relativism?
@@davidzuilhof2272 It doesn't have to. Antirealists can believe that there is a single correct method (in a particular domain), and their arguments to privilege one method over others can be identical to those of realists. It may help to see that there's a symmetric danger for realists. If you're an antirealist and you don't think one method can be argued to be the best, you collapse into relativism. If you're a realist and you don't think one method can be argued to be the best, you collapse into skepticism (for there's a reality, but you don't know how to get there).
I appreciate your answer, thanks!!! That makes sense, I’m going to think about this a bit more. Is your personal view on scepticism similar to Robert Stern’s? You seem sympathetic to his (Kantian) direction, but I might misinterpret you
@@davidzuilhof2272 I haven't delved into Stern yet, so I'm afraid I can't say!
A little question for the antirealists. How is an antirealist going to determine that a certain method of investigating reality is the "best" one. It's best in relation to which parameters? And how is he able to "go meta" and establish those parameters, if the first and primary thing is the norm itself?
Yeah. Good questions. But how is the realist going to determine that a certain method of investigating reality is the one that gets us to actual reality? How is he going to establish that without presupposing that his current methods are what gets us to reality? I'm not asking those questions as a rhetorical trick. I think the realist and the anti-realist are *in the exact same boat* when it comes to answering these questions. What can we do, except use our current standards to improve those very standards?
@@VictorGijsbers I suppose that for a realist there is no method before reality: the ens precedes the thought, thinking is always about being. So, we can be sure that if we think it's because we already have somewhat of a grasp on (or maybe an intimate connection to) reality.
It seems that one cannot distinguish the truth realist vs the truth anti-realist by their behaviors (outside of debating realism/antirealism) - both will produce the same math and science. In which case the realism/anti-realism difference regarding truth is doing no work. Its a difference that makes no difference. Is this a reasonable inference?
Some pragmatists might say that, but I think there can be a big difference in philosophy, which in turn influences other things. Even Rorty, a pretty thoroughgoing pragmatist, thought the difference could make a difference, because realism tells us to submit to a nonhuman authority and antirealism makes us fully responsible ourselves. Rorty thought this distinction can have ramifications in ethics and politics. Or take, for a totally different example, one's attitude to the continuum hypothesis in mathematics. The antirealist will think we've got a free choice to accept it, the realist will yearn for an insight into its truth or falsity.
@@VictorGijsbers Makes sense. (Its true, I was channeling Rorty). Thank you. Really appreciate this channel.
@@VictorGijsbers I'm a psychologist very interested in metaphysics. My understanding is that realism orientates toward some sort of singular account of humanity / identity, whereas anti realism opens up multiple possible and competing contextual accounts of identity. Is that right? It opens up more space to potentially contest what our 'best methods' are. Or is this too far in the direction of 'relativism'. Love the channel, especially metaphysics and postmodernism content.
In terms of mathematical reality, I imagine it could be possible to show that some conjectures are inherently unprovable, so that this could be a feature of the reality.
For physical realism, I guess that realists are unlikely to accept the hypothesis that a do-nothing-on does in fact do nothing, while the anti-realist will advance the hypothesis as an idea to undermine realism. I am not sure that is effective though because, it is hard to see what kind of norm or norms a do-nothing-on could arise from.
The problem that the anti-realist faces is their reliance on mere empiricism as means for absolute truth/knowledge. A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but there are many things that are obviously the case that are not empirically verified to be so - the universals.
They include numbers, the laws of logic/thought, the self/mind, time & space (see Kant's a priori metaphysic, although flawed), ethics, the past, etc.
These "things" exist, but are non-material, therefore not subject to direct empirical investigation. Are they related to empirical investigation? Yes. But they are not empirically verified to exist, nor can they be.
But an antirealist doesn't have to limit themselves to empirical investigation. The antirealist in mathematics typically will not, for instance.
@@VictorGijsbers I thought that the antirealist was averse to describing mathematical truth as independent of the human mind because of an empirical approach. I may have misunderstood.
I don't see how the anti-realist can claim reality is what comes out of our _best_ methods if they have no independent grounding for what constitutes a _good_ method. What's to stop them from simply asserting the current methods are the _best_ possible and therefore everything they produce is right by definition? Seems patently circular to me.
It makes sense in mathematics because all systems that don't contain a contradiction are permitted. So there are no worse or better systems, they simply either contain a contradiction or they don't. But extending the anti-realist view to all of science seems to deny that their can be any progress at all in science. Isn't it all just a fad of which method is preferred for this moment?
But the realist is in exactly the same boat. For the realist *also* has no independent grounding for what constitutes a good method. They cannot step out of their method and compare its results to reality, because our method is, by definition, that which we use to judge what reality is like.
@@VictorGijsbers
Isn't this the problem that pragmatism is meant to solve?
Try something new on for size. I would like to chat on your show.
I am a set of a’ priori modes, not a body of limbs and organs. We need to move beyond the notion of “We”. Human is a loose notion at best. In essence, the body/conduit has no fixed predicate in the abstract lens, so the premise is incorrect. What is it of us, that knows this?
Until we know more, we are a set of a’ priori modes trying to stabilise our line in an ocean of dissipating variables. We should define ourselves in this manner. We are a set of modes that allow for systematic alignment. A set synthesised with realities structures and stresses. Understanding this is the next step. Everything else is tied up in a field of inverted axioms and that path is a dead end.
Human is not part of the way I think. I’m beyond it. I don’t know what I am, only that I am not the body. I am a set of modes as I said and until I know more…
Check out my RUclips channel. New paradigm fish by Yap. Watch the man who found the mind.
Peace and love. Yap.
I agree with much of what you say here, though I think you giving an overly charitable description of the anti realism narrative that underpins western political discourse now.
By juxtaposing mathematical theory throughout the discussion, I believe you are guiding a conclusion you wish the viewer to draw.
The current political narratives in the West have their origins in Hegel, Rousseau, Marx, and the Marxist influenced post modern theorists like Foucault, Derrida, Bell, Kendi, Marcuse, etc.
The political praxis of the academic idea of contemporary anti realism, driving the dominant progressive political discourse, is exactly the idea that the Human mind creates reality, specifically, the objective world. The Soviet Man, the End of History, and its modern relation - Intersectional Systemic Analysis, and the end of oppressor-oppressed relation. End-of-History, Intersectionality and Perfected State are all gnostic beliefs that human society are merely projections of group human psychology. The material world is a psychological hologram. This is literally what is believed. Literal telekinesis, based on antirealism. Progress is the deconstruction of human psychology to achieve the intersectional utopia.
Empiricism or objectivity are not just open to a third option in antirealism - in these current world interpretations, antirealism has a spiritual, religious narrative, that humans bend the physical world with brain waves. That is the utopia described at the end of the intersectional, Hegelian or Marxian "End-of-History" rainbows. Hence "XYZ is a social construct", as a fit-all reposte in discourse.
I think you are fair, but your own nuance and biases are the underpinning to lead the witness, and beg the question. It would be better to fully represent the practical results of these ideas in the political realm now, from opposing sides, as well as an academically neutral (practically impossible for humans) exploration.
I don't blame you for this, but you are an Academic, in Leiden, in the Netherlands, in a 21st century Netherlands city. This is the water you swim in, so you would either be very brave, or willing to face social and financial ostracisation, in this situation, to fully flesh out the range of antirealism ideas that are adopted in our modern, western societies.