As was recently posted on LinkedIn by Dr. Ya'akov Sloman, "Scientific Realism, in the general case, is the idea that theories developed by the scientific method match what is "really" in the world. That is, if a theory has predictive value it means that what the theory describes actually exists in the world. In the particulars, every philosopher who considers this idea has variations on it, but the core is the epistemic certainty, the idea that what we know from successful scientific theories (those with predictive power) is not just a model that is internally consistent, rather it is a direct description of things-as-they-are." Is it possible to justify this position without resort to simple optimism or outright faith-based arguments?" Sounds long and philosophical. Yet this simple post generated a blizzard of response. Indeed, if you've been reading this column, there is almost nothing true or what you believe is true without some belief or faith
Random thoughts and used ideas