This seems like a pretty good idea. It suggests that the “reality” of a theory is point on a continuum, not a binary property. For example, under this interpretation, I’d say Newtonian physics is pretty real, but Relativistic physics is even more real than Newton’s physics.
The “reality” of a theory is a point on a continuum of how well the theory maps to reality?
After accepting that reality is external and objective this seems like the best definition. How well a theory maps to reality can be hard to measure until a better theory comes along however.
The real problem is that through out history and to the present day people jump to conclusions and call things real with out proper evidence. If scientists had not jumped to conclusions in the 1860s then there would have been no debate over weather atoms were real or not.
This seems like a pretty good idea. It suggests that the “reality” of a theory is point on a continuum, not a binary property. For example, under this interpretation, I’d say Newtonian physics is pretty real, but Relativistic physics is even more real than Newton’s physics.
The “reality” of a theory is a point on a continuum of how well the theory maps to reality?
After accepting that reality is external and objective this seems like the best definition. How well a theory maps to reality can be hard to measure until a better theory comes along however.
The real problem is that through out history and to the present day people jump to conclusions and call things real with out proper evidence. If scientists had not jumped to conclusions in the 1860s then there would have been no debate over weather atoms were real or not.