Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 19, 2023 18:02:51 GMT
Realists claim there's a reality independent from our views. Antirealists claim the next: there are statements or propositions which cannot be identified with any proof, so we cannot prove them to be truth or false, that's why some statements are dependent on the way of proving them. Anyway, usually they claim something more than just that, they want us to be assured that language is a mediator between the reality and us, and many views on reality are being constructed up upon our language (or conceptual schemes).
The most popular are two strategies of the antirealists:
a) to use examples of non-bivalent propositions (like "I'm a liar" or "Big Bang has started the Universe", which cannot be positively categorized, or verified)
b) to say that nobody has ideal proof mechanism, and we can accept anything only via proving it firstly (i.e. epistemic theory)
Do you think the antirealists have any chance to win this battle?
The most popular are two strategies of the antirealists:
a) to use examples of non-bivalent propositions (like "I'm a liar" or "Big Bang has started the Universe", which cannot be positively categorized, or verified)
b) to say that nobody has ideal proof mechanism, and we can accept anything only via proving it firstly (i.e. epistemic theory)
Do you think the antirealists have any chance to win this battle?