Internal vs. External Realism

Definition

Internal vs. External Realism refers to two different approaches in understanding the nature of reality and our knowledge of it. Internal realism posits that the truth of scientific theories depends on how well they fit within our conceptual frameworks and experiences, while external realism asserts that there is an objective reality independent of human perceptions and beliefs. This distinction is crucial for discussions about the philosophy of science and how we justify our scientific theories.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Internal realism emphasizes the importance of human perspectives in determining what we consider to be true or real, often focusing on concepts like coherence and justification.
2. External realism is often tied to the belief in an objective reality that exists regardless of whether we can perceive or understand it.
3. The no-miracles argument supports external realism by suggesting that the success of scientific theories is best explained by their ability to accurately describe an independent reality rather than being merely useful fictions.
4. Internal realism can lead to skepticism about whether we can ever truly know external reality since our knowledge is always mediated by our experiences.
5. Debates between internal and external realism are foundational in the philosophy of science, influencing how scientists and philosophers think about theories, evidence, and truth.

Review Questions

• How do internal and external realism differ in their approach to understanding scientific theories?
  • Internal realism focuses on how scientific theories relate to our conceptual frameworks and human experiences, suggesting that truth is contingent upon our perspectives. In contrast, external realism argues for an objective reality that exists independently of human thought, claiming that successful scientific theories correspond to this external world. This fundamental difference shapes how each perspective justifies scientific knowledge and assesses the truth of scientific claims.
• What role does the no-miracles argument play in supporting external realism?
  • The no-miracles argument asserts that if scientific theories were not approximately true representations of an independent reality, their success in predicting and explaining phenomena would be inexplicable and akin to a miracle. This argument provides a strong case for external realism by suggesting that the effectiveness of scientific theories points to their correspondence with an objective world rather than being mere useful tools. Essentially, it positions the success of science as evidence for an external reality that exists beyond human perception.
• Evaluate how internal realism challenges the notion of objective truth in science compared to external realism.
  • Internal realism presents a challenge to the idea of objective truth by emphasizing that our understanding of reality is shaped by our subjective experiences and conceptual frameworks. This perspective leads to skepticism about whether we can access an ultimate truth since all knowledge is filtered through human interpretation. In contrast, external realism maintains that there is a truth independent of human beliefs, positioning scientific inquiry as a means to uncover that reality. The tension between these views raises critical questions about the nature of knowledge, evidence, and the possibility of attaining objective understanding in science.

Related terms

Scientific Realism: The view that scientific theories provide true descriptions of the world, and the entities posited by these theories exist independently of our observations.

No-Miracles Argument: A philosophical argument that claims if scientific theories were not approximately true, it would be a miracle that they work so well in predicting and explaining phenomena.

Constructivism: A perspective in philosophy that emphasizes the role of social processes and human constructions in shaping our understanding of knowledge and reality.