Talk:Naïve realism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

I'm not a naïve realist, but this article seems awfully BPOV to me. -Theaterfreak64 07:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More

An encyclopedia article shoud give more than one example. It should explain concepts and give its own plan. We want more.

Just expand : who coined the term ? When ? What was his (their) agenda ?

How does this concept link or oppose to related ones, &c. Thanks a lot. --DLL 19:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The writer has brought a physical impossibility into the proposal in the final paragraph; it is impossible for anything to always appear to possess any property for all observers, for two obvious reasons: a)No two set of sensory faculties are 100% equal and b)Nothing in the universe is truly permanent in form --Replambe 09:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read that last paragraph. It's perfectly clear, actually. Stdbrouw 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is clear and appears to be logical, but is contradictory. I suggest you re-read my comment. I read the article several times. It is still impossible for anything to possess a property that is perceived the same way at all times. There is also a second contradiction that I missed the first time. To cite: "Objects continue to obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone present to observe them doing so." An assertion of the inability to possess an absolute property has nothing to do with whether or not an absolute property exists to be perceived because the opposite of the former assertion would be having an absolute property regardless of perception, not having an apparent absolute property. I suppose this one is debatable, but at the very least, the article should not close with the invalidation of the "conflicting appearances" argument, because even without what I have presented (since the contradictions speak for themselves), it sounds rather biased. --Replambe 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
(1) It is still impossible for anything to possess a property that is perceived the same way at all times. -> (a) it might be physically impossible but it is conceivable (b) exactly the fact that this would seem like an absurd request, is used by the argument to conclude that it's a bad interpretation of naive realism and a bad criticism of the position!
(2) I agree that "Objects continue to obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone present to observe them doing so." isn't really relevant to the article because it is part of any type of realism. But it isn't a contradiction, it's an entirely different argument from the other one you're referring to.
(3) There is no question of bias: naive realism is presented -> conflicting appearances is presented as a counter -> it is suggested that the counter is invalid. That seems pretty neutral to me.
To make things clear: do you know what naive realism is and object to its treatment, or does the article simply strike you as shabby / in need of cleanup? Stdbrouw 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Realism

For an entry that is supposedly about naive realism, it certainly has a lot on scientific realism. It is one thing to say that "Naive realism is distinct from scientific realism," but to then go into more depth on scientific realism than naive realism is to do this entry an injustice. I'd suggest removing it from the article and will if seconded. MBM (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)