Binary Thinking on Scientific Realism
Bot interviews bot on scientific realism vs. scientific anti-realism
This post contains a first for this blog: An automated dialogue in which ChatGPT interviews ChatGPT. My contribution consisted of an instruction to generate an opening question on a certain topic and a repeated generic instruction to produce a follow-up question spurred by the previous answer.
I ran two versions that differed in my description to ChatGPT of the nature of the audience. In Part 1, the interviewer aims to assist a general audience. In Part 2, the interviewer begins afresh and endeavors to ask questions appropriate for an audience of professional philosophers.
The subject for this auto-interview experiment is scientific realism. The topic appeared in the 2020 PhilPapers Survey of professional philosophers posed as "Science: scientific realism vs. scientific anti-realism," and I used this formulation with ChatGPT. Among survey participants, 72% favored scientific realism and 15% favored scientific anti-realism.
Following the two interviews, I asked the Claude AI model for brief critiques of them. These appear in Part 3.
Let’s turn the crank and watch the models go…
—Kelly
Interlocutors:
Part 1: Scientific realism for a general audience
ChatGPT as interviewer (question 1 of 3):
What exactly is the difference between scientific realism and scientific anti-realism and why is there a debate about these two perspectives in the field of science?
ChatGPT as interviewee:
Scientific realism and scientific anti-realism are philosophical positions about the extent to which we can claim to know the truth about the world through science. Realists assert that scientific theories genuinely reflect and describe the reality of the natural world. According to them, unobservable entities posited by scientific theories such as electrons or black holes are as real as the observable phenomena.
On the other hand, anti-realists challenge this belief. They contend that scientific theories are just tools for predicting observable phenomena, but they don't necessarily depict 'the truth' of the world. Anti-realists don't jump to affirm the reality of unobservable entities. They mainly emphasize the empirical adequacy of science, not the literal truth of scientific theories.
The debate between these positions is perennial in the philosophy of science because it touches upon the central role of science, which is understanding the world. Realists argue that success in predicting phenomena should be a good indicator of the truth of our theories. They pose that, if unobservable entities are treated as fiction, it would undermine the integrity of the scientific enterprise.
Anti-realists retort, pointing to the history of science, which is filled with theories once deemed successful and true but later discarded as false, such as the ether theory or the geocentric model. They assert that the realist position is too confident and naive about the metaphysical claims science seems to make. Thus, while both perspectives agree on the practical success of science, they fundamentally disagree on how to interpret what this success means about the reality of the world. This disagreement constitutes the core of the realism versus anti-realism debate in science.
ChatGPT as interviewer (question 2 of 3):
Can you share some specific examples of how this debate between scientific realism and scientific anti-realism has influenced the development of scientific theories or methodologies?
ChatGPT as interviewee:
One example of this debate influencing the development of scientific theories is in quantum mechanics. Anti-realists argue that the strange phenomena observed at the quantum level, such as wave-particle duality or superposition, challenge the idea of a mind-independent reality. They hold that these phenomena don't exist until measured or observed, underscoring the instrumentalist view that theories are merely tools for predicting observations. Realists, on the other hand, argue that these phenomena exist independently of our observations, and the challenge lies in developing a theoretical framework that accurately depicts this reality.
Another example can be seen in the development of scientific methodologies, where the ongoing debate informs how scientists approach their research. Realists adopt a methodology aimed at uncovering the true nature of the world, leading to an approach focused on empirical evidence and testing predictions. Anti-realists, by contrast, may adopt a methodology focused more on the coherence and efficacy of the model, than its literal truth. They might prioritize creating models that can accurately predict or explain phenomena, even if these models don't necessarily represent an objectively 'real' state of affairs.
Lastly, this debate can be traced in the history of science concerning the acceptance of theoretical entities. According to the entity realism, entities like atoms and electrons, even though not directly observable, are accepted due to their successful use in experimental procedures. Conversely, anti-realists could criticize the absolute existence of such entities, as they view scientific theories more as changeable instruments fitting to empirical data rather than true descriptions of the world.
However, both realist and anti-realist perspectives have jointly advanced scientific progress, by encouraging rigorous testing of theories, and allowing for the development of innovative, yet effective, conceptual models.
ChatGPT as interviewer (question 3 of 3):
How does the ongoing debate between scientific realism and scientific anti-realism impact the interpretation and teaching of science, especially in terms of introducing these scientific ideologies to students or the public?
ChatGPT as interviewee:
The ongoing debate between scientific realism and scientific anti-realism plays a significant role in how we interpret and teach science. Scientific realism holds that the theories and models science develops genuinely depict the world, including unobservable aspects, whereas scientific anti-realism argues that the purpose of scientific theories is not to depict the world accurately but merely to simplify and predict observable phenomena.
In teaching, this debate influences the approach taken to explain scientific theories. When introducing scientific ideologies to students or the public, a realist approach would emphasize the truth of scientific theories and their capacity to accurately represent reality, even in unseen aspects like electrons or black holes. A teacher may use 'real world' examples supporting these theories, reinforcing the idea that theories mirror nature and encouraging students to accept these scientific facts.
In contrast, an anti-realist approach would focus more on the explanatory and predictive power of the theories. Here, the teacher might explain how theories are models that help understand and predict observable phenomena without insisting they represent the 'truth'. Students might then learn to question and critically engage with scientific ideas, understanding that all models are simplifications and approximations of the world.
Furthermore, this impacts public understanding of science. Realism may lead to a more authoritative view of science, which either invites trust in scientific institutions or may lead to disillusionment when findings change. Anti-realism, on the other hand, may help explain why scientific knowledge evolves over time and fosters a more dynamic view of science.
The challenge lies in presenting these ideologies without promoting scientific relativism or skepticism about the value and credibility of scientific inquiry. Hence, the ongoing debate is important in shaping modern scientific literacy, fostering critical thinking, and enabling informed public debate.
Part 2: Scientific realism for an audience of professional philosophers
ChatGPT as interviewer (question 1 of 3):
Can you summarize the core differences and implications between scientific realism and scientific anti-realism, particularly in how they influence our interpretation and understanding of scientific theories and observations?
ChatGPT as interviewee:
Scientific realism and anti-realism are philosophical standpoints concerning the nature and understanding of scientific theories and observations.
Scientific realism posits that the unobservable entities posited by scientific theories, like atoms, or black holes, etc., exist in reality. Realists argue that our theories are descriptions of the world and that scientific progress denotes that we're getting closer to an accurate depiction of reality. In this view, truth and accuracy are important aims of science, and successful theories are considered roughly true. The implication here is that we can make robust claims about the nature of the universe based on our current scientific understanding.
On the other hand, scientific anti-realism doubts the actual existence of these unobservable entities. Anti-realists don't dispute the success of scientific theories but argue that this success does not necessarily confirm the existence or truth of unobservable aspects of these theories. Anti-realism, instead, posits theories as useful tools to predict phenomena and emphasizes empirical adequacy over truth. Hence, they argue that the aim of science is not to find absolute truth but to develop empirically successful theories with dependable predictive capacities.
Therefore, while realism gives our scientific theories a broad, meta-physical interpretation, anti-realism rather emphasizes on their instrumental effectiveness. Realism motivates us to research what our theories imply about the nature of reality beyond what we can observe, while anti-realism cautions us about drawing conclusions about unobservables, stressing on the practical use of scientific theories. Both have significant bearings on how we perceive, interpret, and utilize science.
ChatGPT as interviewer (question 2 of 3):
Given the contrast between the viewpoints of scientific realism and anti-realism, how would these philosophical standpoints influence the development and interpretation of a scientific theory which evolves over time, such as the theory of evolution? Would the adjustments and refinements of such a theory over time support the realist's view of getting closer to the truth or the anti-realist's argument that theories are merely tools with no definite truth?
ChatGPT as interviewee:
Scientific realism and anti-realism represent two distinct perspectives on the interpretation and developmental trajectory of scientific theories. The theory of evolution, given its adaptive nature and ongoing refinements, provides a fitting exemplum for examining these viewpoints.
Realists would interpret the evolving theory as asymptotically approaching a fixed, objectively true representation of biological history. They believe that science aims at uncovering the real structure of the world, and progress in a theory indicates increasing proximity to the ultimate truth. Adjustments and refinements to the theory of evolution would be seen as improvements, corrections and enhancements that contribute towards realizing an absolute, underlying truth about how life on earth has evolved.
In contrast, anti-realists believe that science does not aim to portray the world as it is, but rather, to offer models and theories that successfully predict and explain natural phenomena. They see theories as useful instruments or tools that help us interact functionally with the world. From this perspective, an evolving theory of evolution doesn't necessarily inch closer to an ultimate truth. Instead, its alterations and refinements optimize its performance as a predictive tool and explanatory framework.
In conclusion, the ongoing development of the theory of evolution supports both perspectives, which are complementary rather than contradictory. The realist interpretation emphasizes the pursuit of objective truth through constant theoretical refinement. The anti-realist viewpoint accentuates the pragmatic role of scientific theories as effective instruments for explaining and predicting phenomena. Both perspectives enrich our understanding of scientific progress, and their collaborative consideration could lead to a more nuanced appreciation of evolution as a dynamic scientific theory.
ChatGPT as interviewer (question 3 of 3):
Considering that both philosophical standpoints interpret the development and adjustments of complex theories such as evolution, how would the controversy surrounding theories with debatable evidence like string theory play out from a realist and anti-realist perspective? Would scientific realism lean towards accepting a mathematically consistent but currently untestable theory, while scientific anti-realism be more critical given the lack of empirical adequacy?
ChatGPT as interviewee:
In the debate between scientific realism and anti-realism about theories like string theory, which are supported by mathematical consistency but lack empirical evidence, the positioning could indeed be as hypothesized.
Scientific realists, considering their belief in an independent ontological reality that can be explained by science, could be inclined towards accepting string theory. Their course of argument would likely be that while we currently lack the technology and methodology to test string theory empirically, this doesn't necessarily deny its validity. They would put weight on the theory's consistency within the mathematical framework - viewing this as evidence that it accurately represents an aspect of reality we might not yet fully comprehend.
On the other hand, scientific anti-realists, who require empirical adequacy for the acceptance of a theory, might question the validity of string theory given the current lack of testable evidence. They tend to assert that the value of a scientific theory lies primarily in its predictive power or its utility as a tool rather than in its correspondence to an independent reality. From this perspective, the sophisticated mathematical equations of string theory, while impressive, might seem more ornamental than substantial until they can produce testable, confirmable predictions.
However, it is worth mentioning that this is an oversimplification and the actual philosophical underpinnings of both stances are more nuanced. Moreover, individual perspectives within both realist and anti-realist camps may also vary, leading to a spectrum of attitudes rather than a simple binary. Furthermore, this discussion remains speculative until these theories can be empirically validated.
Part 3: Critiques
I asked the Claude AI model for its top three criticisms of each of the above ChatGPT-to-ChatGPT automated interviews.
Claude on the general-audience interview:
Here are three brief criticisms of the interview on scientific realism vs anti-realism for an amateur audience:
Overly technical language. While aimed at an amateur audience, the interview still uses quite a bit of philosophical jargon like "metaphysical claims" and "entity realism" that may go over people's heads. Simpler language would make concepts more accessible.
Lacks concrete examples. Though some examples are given, the interview would benefit from more specific, tangible examples to illustrate the debate, like the discovery of Neptune or debate over string theory. This makes it less abstract.
One-sided perspective. The interview focuses heavily on explaining the anti-realist perspective and its criticisms of realism. Giving more balance to the realist counter-arguments could provide a more nuanced take for an amateur audience.
In summary, using more straightforward language, real-world examples, and a balanced presentation of both sides would strengthen the interview for an amateur audience with limited philosophical background. The concepts are already complex so grounding them in concrete cases and clear explanations is key.
Claude on the professional-audience interview:
Here are 3 brief criticisms of the interview on scientific realism vs anti-realism:
It presents the two positions as more dichotomous and mutually exclusive than they actually are. In reality, there is more overlap and interrelation between the perspectives.
The characterization of anti-realism is somewhat reductive, overlooking some of its more nuanced arguments about theory change and approximation to truth.
The analysis in places seems to conflate epistemic anti-realism with semantic anti-realism, without clearly delineating their differences.
In summary, the interview could benefit from a more balanced portrayal recognizing the subtleties in both positions, avoiding false dichotomies, and clearly defining the variants of anti-realism. A bit more nuance and precision in the analysis would strengthen its rigor for a professional philosophy audience.
It remains for the reader to determine the nature of any connections between the preceding artificially generated considerations and reality.