7:41 I don't think this is a good argument against realism. The reason why is that scientists try to eliminate biases and do not just stick with one interpretation but experiment with multiple. In other words even though scientists may have have a predisposition to certain interpretations than others they still entertain other ones.
it's true that while certain interpreations that are not consistent with the scientific paradigm are investigated, but generally theories are developed from the assumptions the paradigm provides. So for instance a grant unified theory if it exists, it could be that it exists in a different paradigm of scientific theories. Suppose one theory is able to explain relativity and reproduce the predictions but uses a math that is unfamiliar to us, then we would probably follow our paradigm than reinvent it to make it fit the new theory. This can lead to local maxima and in the end we find a system that explains some phenomena quite well, and others not at all, but then also some that we cannot observe and are left with questions (like the infinite density in the middle of a black hole). This is why I believe this argument still holds, as it just illustrates how our theories are not independently created.
Thank you! I love how you structured the different arguments. It helps a lot
lol the Jump-Scare at 6:02
7:41 I don't think this is a good argument against realism. The reason why is that scientists try to eliminate biases and do not just stick with one interpretation but experiment with multiple. In other words even though scientists may have have a predisposition to certain interpretations than others they still entertain other ones.
it's true that while certain interpreations that are not consistent with the scientific paradigm are investigated, but generally theories are developed from the assumptions the paradigm provides. So for instance a grant unified theory if it exists, it could be that it exists in a different paradigm of scientific theories. Suppose one theory is able to explain relativity and reproduce the predictions but uses a math that is unfamiliar to us, then we would probably follow our paradigm than reinvent it to make it fit the new theory. This can lead to local maxima and in the end we find a system that explains some phenomena quite well, and others not at all, but then also some that we cannot observe and are left with questions (like the infinite density in the middle of a black hole). This is why I believe this argument still holds, as it just illustrates how our theories are not independently created.