Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

38
  • 2
    See what I mean? Here we have a smart, well-intentioned person. The kind of person who tries hard to only believe things that are true. But he made a terrible mistake! He read some science journalism and thought it was giving him information beyond references and reasons to mock the profession of journalism. And as a result, he believes nonsense. Commented Dec 22, 2024 at 8:15
  • 2
    @gs I am assuming that you think Double Knot’s statement that entangled particles can influence each other instantaneously is nonsense. However, many physicists actually do believe this and many are taking this seriously. There are also interpretations of QM (such as Bohmian mechanics) that posit just these kinds of influences. Ironically, some physicists think it to be nonsense that these influences that would explain non local correlations are not occurring. Commented Dec 22, 2024 at 10:59
  • 3
    This question should really be updated with links to the articles involved plus answers to @Lowri 's questions. As it stands it just expresses a feeling of "oddness" about -- I don't know about what. (Yes -- journalism is often no more than sensaionalism - especially also in popular science physics journalism. Regrettable, but not odd.) I'm voting to close it for these reasons. Commented Dec 22, 2024 at 14:43
  • 2
    @Steve Your "wish it were so" about realism does not make science a conspiracy to refute your preferred worldview. and your seizing upon Quine-Duhem to argue against inference to the best explanation is you rejecting science in favor of your ideology. Science relies upon usable predictions and the ability to do testing. That Einstein's Hidden Variables failed multiple test cases, and Bohmian mechanics is also clearly going down that path -- matters to actual scientists. It does not matter to ideologues, which looks like the case for you. Commented Dec 23, 2024 at 18:39
  • 2
    @Steve I think what you have to appreciate Steve is the attitude "I know it when I hear it" is sort of anti-philosophical, which is certainly your prerogative. But from the perspective of those of us who take the time to read Duhem, Quine, Sellars, McDowell, Lewis, Dummett (those are 5% of the books I own on the topic), you come across as argumentative, but uneducated on the topic. I'm not insulting you, but just pointing out that knowledge on what constitutes anti-realism, idealism, Platonism, etc. are a necessary condition on criticizing critics of scientific realism... Commented Dec 23, 2024 at 22:06