Epistemologically, scientific realism is (say, mainly) based on the idea that we generate theoretical entities to understand, describe, and discover a structure in the reality; these entities are unobservable, yet they are real, they exist independently from our research and our mind. In other words, these entities are not merely instruments to discover reality; they are real (see Alexander Wendt, for example among others). However, for critical realism (e.g., Roy Bhaskar) this point is not clear for me: Do theoretical entities we generate to understand the "structured reality" have their ontological-real existence independently from our mind? are they real, not merely instruments to understand reality?
thanks in advance
It Depends
They are real as angels and demons to scholars of the middle ages. Possibly a simplistic take, but just theoretical entities we generate to understand the "structured reality" have their ontological-real existence independently from our mind, whether "fallen" angels or not, they do not exist physically, but as collections of memes repeated over and over until they are "truer" than reality for humans(1.). If I were to make an analogy the collection of peace, love, and mud that swirled through the minds and differing collections of people at Woodstock seems and acts exactly like an angel straight out of the Bible. Not present bodily, but able to manifest in the actions and emotions of people. With the opposite but same situation, hoping to recreate Woodstock at the Rolling Stones concert at Altmont California, where "demonic forces" roamed.
I can't for the life of me see any difference between us acting in concert seemingly individually yet collectively through heart and mind, with even ephemeral movements and goals, as if humans have a group mind, like the bee, ant, and termite hives. (2.)Capable of amazing engineering or mass suicide like lemmings. The yin and yang forces anthropomorphized. Our scent marks and reactions to them being our idea of truths and the "tribes" with which we align with. And ideas of truth is the right phrase, for if we hear a concept over and over again the illusory truth effect (3.) kicks in
, and a tendency to believe false information or illogical arguments to be correct after repeated exposure to them, even when in hindsight no one should've believed them in the first place. The combination of hive or group mind plus illusionary truth seems particularly acute in the hard sciences and medicine. The Earth is round and you should wash your hands after an autopsy before delivering a baby(4.), seem self-evident today. But whether it is to cling to a worldview as antioxidants heal, and free radicals damage (5.) blinded science to the crucial role the free radical nitric oxide has in our immune systems(6) just as the phlogiston theory two centuries ago blinded science for decades to the role oxygen actually has in combustion. (7.)
Occam's Razor (8.) and the Scientific Method (9) were developed to free humanity from these tendencies, but they are limited the former is not proof only an indication, after all having a cold and being insulin resistant at the same time is more common than an exotic disease that matches all the symptoms, and the latter many theories cannot be tested in a lab, or as argued here very intelligent people can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view. (10.
Sincerely
Prof Christopher G YUKNA
References
Article The Free Radical Theory of Aging Is Dead. Long Live the Damage Theory!
Article Nitric oxide and immune response
According to Max Horkheimer (critical theory) critical thinking must involve observable theories, must be understood from a practice, and must be normative in nature. So in understanding "structured reality" a researcher must be able to bring out those salient issues of the subject matter as gaps and then bring out what the independent variables are as cause and bring out what the dependent variables are as as effects which must be supported by the literature to support epistemological scientific realism (facts) about the structured reality. Moreso, the "structured reality" can also be understood by the ontology of the researcher based on Gramsci critical theory of hegemony (domination) in the "structured reality" i hope this helps @Samer Sharani
Critical realism does recognize the existence of theoretical entities, but it does so with a different approach than scientific realism. Rather than assuming that the entities exist independently of our research and our minds, critical realism argues that these entities are dependent on our research activities and our understanding of reality. That is, they are seen as social constructions that are shaped by our beliefs, interests, and experience. Critical realism also emphasizes the importance of empirical research as a means of uncovering the underlying structures of social reality. In this way, it allows for the possibility of discovering new truths and realities that are not necessarily dependent on our pre-existing beliefs and assumptions.
On April 30, our magazine will publish a number of articles exclusively entitled: Between faith and science.
These questions raised here are in line with us.
I appreciate the opportunity to publish each of your material by invitation.
Congratulations!