Why? How does realism explain why science works? What is the exact argument, premises, and conclusion?
>There’s a definition of “external reality”: it’s where your sense data come from.
This definition is incoherent, and I addressed it directly in OP. It’s also circular—it assumes your sense data comes from somewhere, which is precisely what I’m claiming is incoherent. Giving a definition that assumes the matter in debate is begging the question.
>There is a purpose served by the posit of an external reality: explaining how science works .
I still don’t know how your proposed explanation works. I think any such explanation can be replaced with an equally valid explanation that doesn’t assume incoherent concepts such as realism. And even if you managed to show that, all you’d be showing is that the concept is useful, which neither implies coherency nor truth.
>There is a meaning of “true model”, based on correspondence.
This again relies on the assumption of realism, which is circular.
I’ve already given a definition of incoherent. A belief is coherent if it constrains expectations. A definition is incoherent if it relies on incoherent beliefs.
Are you going to hold yourself to same standard?
You’re making three claims: one, that realism is coherent; two, that realism explains how science works; three, that one can’t explain science as easily without realism.
My claim is that realism is incoherent, and that whatever argument you have for your second claim, I can find one just as good without using realism.
I only asked you to provide details on the second claim. If you do, I will hold myself to the same standards when arguing against the third. I can’t give a precise argument to explain science without realism now, because I don’t know what you want in an explanation until I’ve seen your argument.
That’s what “sense data” means.
So reality is defined in terms of sense data, and sense data is defined in terms of reality. No, that doesn’t work.
>You need it to explain why science works at all.
Why? How does realism explain why science works? What is the exact argument, premises, and conclusion?
>There’s a definition of “external reality”: it’s where your sense data come from.
This definition is incoherent, and I addressed it directly in OP. It’s also circular—it assumes your sense data comes from somewhere, which is precisely what I’m claiming is incoherent. Giving a definition that assumes the matter in debate is begging the question.
>There is a purpose served by the posit of an external reality: explaining how science works .
I still don’t know how your proposed explanation works. I think any such explanation can be replaced with an equally valid explanation that doesn’t assume incoherent concepts such as realism. And even if you managed to show that, all you’d be showing is that the concept is useful, which neither implies coherency nor truth.
>There is a meaning of “true model”, based on correspondence.
This again relies on the assumption of realism, which is circular.
Are you going to hold yourself to same standard?
Exactly and precisely how?
That’s what “sense data” means.
Circular “definitions* are ubiquitous. Circular arguments are the problem .
I’ve already given a definition of incoherent. A belief is coherent if it constrains expectations. A definition is incoherent if it relies on incoherent beliefs.
You’re making three claims: one, that realism is coherent; two, that realism explains how science works; three, that one can’t explain science as easily without realism.
My claim is that realism is incoherent, and that whatever argument you have for your second claim, I can find one just as good without using realism.
I only asked you to provide details on the second claim. If you do, I will hold myself to the same standards when arguing against the third. I can’t give a precise argument to explain science without realism now, because I don’t know what you want in an explanation until I’ve seen your argument.
So reality is defined in terms of sense data, and sense data is defined in terms of reality. No, that doesn’t work.
The definition you are now giving:
Isnt’t the same as the one you gave before:
But that would certainly explain why seem to have been using “incoherent” and “meaningless” interchangeably.
Binary attributes aren’t the same as beliefs.