The truth that realists (like cladists and particle physicists) search is compromise

Truth for nominalists, like traditional empirical scientists, are statements that can’t be falsified.

Truth for realists, like cladists and particle phycisists, are statements that can be verified.

It means that truth for nominalists are consistent statements that agree with facts, whereas truth for realists is anything. Truths for nominalists can thus not contradict each other, whereas truths for realists not only can, but actually do contradict each other (ie, my truth is not your truth).

It means that all nominalist truths are objective, whereas objective truths for realists must be something in the middle between their subjective truths. So, what is an objective truth between several contradictory subjective truths? Well, since subjectivity can’t be objective, this kind of truth must simply be the opposite to objective truth, that is, compromise.

Compromise is thus the kind of truth that realists, like cladists and particle physicists, practically search. They thus apparently believe that compromise can be found in the form of thing. Is it possible to confuse matters more than this? (Has anyone seen a clade or a scalar particle out there?)

Advertisements

3 responses to “The truth that realists (like cladists and particle physicists) search is compromise

  1. Truth? Could you define that?

    • Here, “the true tree of life” (cladistics) and “Higgs particle” (particle physics) according to how they define them.

      In a more general sense, I define “truth” as a statement about (assertion of) reality (or formula) that doesn’t have an equally true “but” statement (then including both realist and nominalist truths, ie, both verified and unfalsifiable statements), except tautologies. The reason is that such statements (or formulas) are contingent, and that the opposite to tautologies (ie, unsatisfiable statements) are contradictory.

      In this post, I’m thus saying that realist “truths” actually are not truths (ie, tautologies), but compromises (because they are contingent), making search for them practically infinite. I’m thus saying that cladists and particle physicists can go on searching their “true tree of life” and “Higgs particle” forever without finding them, because these things are actually compromises. (A fact that is fairly difficult to understand, which probably is the reason for realism’s tenaciousness.)

  2. Pingback: Don’t Question The Moment (NaPoWriMo, Day 2) | Stories in 5 Minutes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s