Is instrumentalism the death of scientific progress?
>>16829482No if anything it'd be an improvement so people don't get attached to the metaphysical implications of theories as added dogmatic baggage
>>16829691>so people don't get attached to the metaphysical implications of theories as added dogmatic baggageBy which you mean so people don't have any intuitions, philosophical ideas or aesthetic sensibilities that contradict the buildup of abstract slop that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.
>>16829708Yes reality is far too strange it should be investigated with as little baggage as possible, treating it as a disposable tool rather than some mystical practice involving ontological commitments is best. You can play with any ideas freely in the instrumentalist headspace without attachment.
>>16829920>YesOk, then. So long as we're clear about what your actual agenda is. Everything else you spout is irrelevant pretext.
>>16829944I accept your concession.
>>16830006Ok, then. So long as we're clear about what your actual agenda is. Everything else you spout is irrelevant pretext.
>>16829920Einstein's big breakthrough with SR was thinking about it as an actual representation of reality. Lorentz, Poincare, and others got close, but they didn't get the metaphysical interpretation right, a large part came from Einstein's intuition and thought experiments. Thinking about what stuff actually means is important
>>16830052Nta, but you just got your ass kicked, son.Stay down. You lost.
>>16830061>seethingSee >>16829944
>>16830078You lost round 1. Let it go.Good luck in round 2.
>>16830095>post says a thing>i elaborate on the implications of the thing>poster agrees that those are the implications>i say "ok, so long as we agree those are the implications">mentally ill retard obsesses over that exchange ad infinitum>keeps winning some one-sided debates happening entirely in his head
>>16830096I'd recommend you use a different tactic in round 2. Just saying.
This post will trigger some kind of reaction from some kind of mentally ill retard with zero impulse control.
>Instrumentalism is le bad... or something
>>16830101which type.-curios.
>>16829482Anything that isn't instrumentalistic about science is religious in nature.Reproducibility is the end-all-be-all purpose of science. Anything less isn't science. Anything more isn't science.
>>16830058What did Einstein add to relativity? All of it was known about when he was just a child. People didn't want to accept the implications. He went ahead and accepted them, may others did as well.
