> If you're an idealist, the quarks are products of human perception, but
> you've got to use exactly the same procedures to study them
> that a "realist" physicist would use. So "realism" is not
> a logical prerequisite for doing science or advancing scientific
> knowledge.
So if an "idealist" physicist and a "realist" physicist use exactly the same procedures, what's the difference between "idealism" and "realism," outside of purely verbal differences?
It has always seemed to me that the Achilles heel of metaphysical idealism is that those folks always had to bring in some sort of principle to account for the objective reality of -- for want of a better word -- "reality." Hence, Berkeley relies on God to keep watching the candle burning, e.g., when you go out of the room, so that it has burned down just enough when you pop back into the room 30 minutes later.
I guess I'm basically a pragmatist -- if Mr. Idealist and Ms. Realist use the same procedures, then they are actually in agreement.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ "I believe in seeing two sides to an issue so as I can show the other guy where he is wrong." -- Archie Bunker