Correction: (max 500 charact.)
The complaint will not be published.
I 4
Realism/FraassenVsRealism: inverted error as in positivism: instead of making everything into language, it realizes everything that cannot be defined away. >
Positivism .
I 7
((s) VsRealism/Fraassen/(s): realism cannot claim that the present best theory is false, i.e. it is ultimately denying progress.)
I 9
However, the orientation to truth does not imply that we are ever entitled to believe a theory.
I 21
Realism/Best Explanation/Fraassen: every regularity needs an explanation.
Nominalism: there are only regularities, but they do not all have to be explained. >
Nominalism .
I 24
Regularities are "mere facts" (or: "naked facts").
I 32f
Sellars: pro Realism - Theory/Sellars: explains not at all, but shows why observable objects obey so-called laws - there are no empirical laws - For example that water boils at 100°C is valid only under normal pressure. - (>
Laws/Nancy Cartwright ,
Theories/Cartwright ,
Explanations/Cartwright ).
I 37
Realism/Dummett: new: realism should not relate classes of entities and expressions, but classes of statements - these can only be understood by reference to the kind thing we would accept as evidence - thus the nominalist becomes a realist.
I 38
Realism/Dummett/Fraassen: this is where Dummett is concerned with language. - According to him, not all sentences must be true/false - but they can be!
Constructive Empiricism: also the constructive empiricism adopts mind-independent truth values.
FraassenVsDummett: this is not about language. >
Empiricism .
I 209
Realism/Fraassen pro: we know of some regularities - so there must be underlying reasons - according to Thomas Aquina's proof of God's existence.
>
Proof of God's existence .