Entity Realism and Theory Realism and the Position of Ian Hacking - Research Paper Example

Introduction In order to discuss the various issues related with the entity realism and theory realism and the position of Ian Hacking on both, it is important that a brief review of the scientific realism and how it affects the other two is necessary. It is generally believed that any attempt to infer the truth from the scientific realism often results into being circular because the explanation that it provides regarding the instrumental success of science.(Gross,1990). Thus the arguments of Hacking regarding the scientific realism is believed to have avoided this issue of circularity from the overall argument of the scientific realism and how instrumental success of science can contribute towards the general belief for inferring the truth. There is also a debate which advocates the non-application of the realism to the scientific theories as it is not conclusive and deals with the future. What is also significant to note that realism of entities is considered as an acceptable phenomenon in terms of using an entity during the experiments? It is also argued that proving the existence of the entities may also be difficult as during the scientific experiments, scientists only manipulate the entities rather than prove their existence. Ian Hacking however, provided a very clear distinction between the entity realism and theory realism besides providing experimental arguments in favor of entity realism. This paper will therefore basically attempt to discuss the position of Hacking on the entity realism as well as on theory realism and how Hacking advances his arguments in favor of entity realism. Scientific Realism Before discussing further, it is important that a comprehensive understanding of the scientific realism is developed as it serves as the foundation for most of the arguments in this paper. Scientific realism potentially attempt to answer different set of questions including our belief in those unseen entities which exist but cannot be seen with the naked eye. Do we need to believe in such entities or there any other methods through which we can prove their existence or rather accept their existence. What is also significant to understand that such entities put a very challenging question as to the fact that whether such entities really exist? And how they can be defined and explored further. The work of Ian Hacking was mostly based on this simple curiosity to define the existence of such entities.(Cruse, 2003). Scientific realism is the term which is often used to describe the overall successes of the science as it attempts to answer the question of how successful science was in describing the world that we see. The general idea or perception is that the world described by the science is the real world and is considered to be independent of what one might consider as true. This proposition therefore outline that the world as described by the science is the correct description of the world. The two basic preposition of the scientific realism therefore indicate that there is a perfect theory which science ultimately aim to produce and the second assumption is that the science will ultimately be able to produce the perfect theory. The basic aim of the scientific realism therefore is that the science has the ability to progress and produce successful results as it progresses. This also means that the abducative reasoning indicating that the science has the ability to produce the results by predicting the phenomenon that may take place in future. On the other hand, it is also important to note that many scientific theories which were considered as scientifically correct but were later on proved as unsuccessful as better understanding of the science developed. Entity Realism Before further elaborating on the issue, it is important that entity realism as well as theory realism is also defined in order to broaden the understanding and put the debate in proper perspective. Entity realism is itself a debate within the scientific realism dealing primarily with the theoretical realism. It advocates that the entities that can effectively feature into the scientific studies can only be considered if they can be used in the experiments that can investigated. Entity realism therefore is also considered as the moderate form of realism as it generally does not depend upon the influence to the Best explanation. Ian Hacking believe that no field in the philosophy is more neglected than the experimentation and as such his entire argument is based on the experimentation and how it can affect the entities and their existence. The basic distinction therefore between the theory realism and entity realism is deeply rooted into this distinction that Hacking has made.(Gross, 1990). Electrons were the basic entities which actually formulated the subsequent thoughts of Hacking as his basic arguments are mostly based on the behavior of electrons. Hacking used electrons as an analogy to discuss the existence of such entities which can only be maneuvered or observed during the experimentation process. As such the overall importance of experimentation is quite significant in the work of Hacking who considers experimentation as a basis for proving the existence of entities and their subsequent impact on the manner in which experiments are conducted.(Hacking,1991) Entity realism was mostly perfected by the Ian Hacking after his observations and studies at the Stanford lab. He observed that if electrons or other entities can be sprayed in a lab than they exist and as such the notion of reality existence depending upon the experimentation. It is because of this reason that entity realism is also considered as experimental realism because of its emphasis on the experimentation as the best source of understanding and validating an entity. It is crucial to understand that the multiplicity of the theoretical perspectives on scientific realism make it difficult for the scientists to actually prove the existence of any entity. Hacking seems to exploit this weakness of the theory realism and attempts to provide an alternative explanation of the entity realism. He basis his argument on the assumption that any entity which can be manipulated It is also important to note that this approach to the philosophy of science has been criticized also as it tend to ignore those entities which exist but cannot be manipulated. Since emphasis is on manipulation it is therefore argued that entity realism only considers those entities as real which can be manipulated through experimentation. This restriction therefore indicates that the entity realism may not provide the correct answers. Further, the views of Cartwright shall also be taken into consideration as Hacking provided an alternative thought to the views generally held by Cartwright. “Cartwright claims that you have offered no explanation at all if you give the preceding story and then add, "For all we know molecules might not really exist, and the world simply behaves as if they exist." Theoretical explanations, on the other hand, which merely derive the laws governing the behavior of those entities from more fundamental laws, are not necessary to believe, since a multiplicity of theoretical laws can account for the phenomenological laws that we derive from experiment. Cartwright argues that scientists use often different and incompatible theoretical models based on how useful those models are in particular experimental situations; if this is so, scientists cannot be committed to the truth of all their theoretical models. However, scientists do not admit incompatible causal explanations of the same phenomenon; according to Cartwright, that is because a causal explanation cannot explain at all unless the entities that play the causal roles in the explanation exist.”(soc.iastate.edu) This explanation of the Cartwright is focused on the casual adaptation of the tools and techniques that are used by the scientists while relying on the theoretical models to undertake the study of different entities. The distinction between the theory realism and entity realism therefore can be summed up in the words of Hacking indicating that experimentalists are not just convinced by the theory of the particles that they observe but rather they are content with the experiments through which they can actually manipulate the entity itself. Thus there is no relationship between the entity realism and theory realism as both attempts to deal with two different aspects of the reality. This also significant due to the fact that Hacking considers theoretical models as fit for only one set of properties of entities and as such they may fail to provide plausible explanation for properties. This limitation of the theoretical models therefore serves as the main ingredient of Hacking’s theory that focuses on the development of an alternative approach towards defining entities and their existence. Hacking also seems to attack the fundamental flaws in the theory by stating that the meaning of electron cannot remain same if its description differs from theory to theory. Thus is it important to note that meaning of electrons needs to be defined in the referential framework which Hacking borrowed from the work of Hilary Putnam. He argues that the discipline shall be indebted to the work of Putnam who attempted to define the meanings in referential terms therefore the potential weaknesses of theory were overcome. Success Argument The above discussion indicates that Hacking’s work mostly emphasized on the experimentation and subsequent maneuvering of the entities through experimentation. The success argument however, advocates that the scientific theories are successful in proving existence of the unobservable entities. This argument therefore basically entails that the scientific theories are more plausible in successfully outlining the explanation of the unobservable entities. Success argument however, also seems to accept that every theoretical attempt seems to be confronted with the empirical deficiencies. The basic proposition of the Hacking is quite different from the success argument as he attempts to link the existence of the entities with that of the experimentation. As such this is different from the success argument which put more emphasis on the theoretical description however, still accepts that such thinking may be fraught due to empirical deficiencies. Success argument is also however, based on the assumption that as scientific knowledge becomes more mature, the chances are that the new scientific theories define the truth in more conclusive manner. Thus the later theories are considered as more accurate description of the scientific truth. This feature is however, lacking from the explanation provided by Hacking as entity realism tend to be rigid in some areas. Thus success arguments also argue that more mature science can provide to the more emerging problems of the science and some of the unobservable entities which need to be further explored. As such the basic the basic difference is based on how theory and experimentation basically provide answers to the more important questions of science. Both attempt to follow the scientific realism however one view the entities from a different perspective whereas other base it on the experimentation and how it can provide answers to the existence of unobservable entities within scientific realm. Conclusion Ian Hacking’s contribution towards the philosophy of science is significant as he made some of the most important contributions towards the understanding of the world at large. His basic propositions were based on the assumption that those entities which cannot be potentially observed or seen with the naked eyes can be considered as real if they can be maneuvered through experimentation. This also means that Hacking assumed that those entities which could be maneuvered through experimentation may not exist at all until theory proved them. This potential conflict between the two arguments therefore creates a strong rift between the two contrasting arguments. The success arguments indicate that more mature science can overcome the weaknesses of the earlier theory by providing more plausible and credible explanation to the different arguments put forward. The success argument therefore indicates that as the science becomes more mature, it will overcome the deficiencies. This is however, lacking from the entity realism which fail to provide credible explanation for those entities which really exist but cannot be observed or explored. This rigidity therefore render this argument a rather more fragile as it may be shutting the door on the further scientific exploration to take place in future. References 1. Gross, A (1990). Reinventing Certainty: The Significance of Ian Hackings Realism. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association,. 1990, pp.421-431. 2. Hacking (eds). (1991). The philosophy of science. Boston: MIT Press. 3. Cruse , P(2003). On Scientific Realism. Richmond Journal of Philosophy. 3, pp.1-8. Read More