“That’s the point of physics: to accurately model a specific type of observations”
Neither is a fact. The realism/instrumentalism debate has been going on for a long time. Calling the realist position “confused” isn’t going to settle it.
I mean, instrumentally, physics about making and testing models, whether your philosophy is idealism, realism or anything else. Philosophy is a different kettle of fish, and yeah, the debate there has been going on forever, since there is no experimental way to resolve it.
I mean, instrumentally, physics about making and testing models
It’s about that in the sense that that is the method, but it is not about that as a point. You don’t just build models, and put them in a filing cabinet, you build models and use them to make predictions, and also to make claims about the nature of reality.
This a statement of the realistic philosophy:
This is a statement of the idealist philosophy:
Neither is a fact. The realism/instrumentalism debate has been going on for a long time. Calling the realist position “confused” isn’t going to settle it.
I mean, instrumentally, physics about making and testing models, whether your philosophy is idealism, realism or anything else. Philosophy is a different kettle of fish, and yeah, the debate there has been going on forever, since there is no experimental way to resolve it.
It’s about that in the sense that that is the method, but it is not about that as a point. You don’t just build models, and put them in a filing cabinet, you build models and use them to make predictions, and also to make claims about the nature of reality.
Right, it is, but the second part is basically “philosophy”, though most physicists are naive realists and “make claims about the nature of reality”.