Entity realism

The entities realism is a variant of realism in the philosophy of science. This position is represented, among others, largely by Ian Hacking. This entity used as a tool in the experiment to be recognized as real. The argument in favor of this thesis runs something like this: If you so much understood by an entity and its causal connection that you can use it as a means, an instrument - such as a hammer with which you hit a nail into the wall - it is simply unreasonable, their reality is undeniable.

If you can spray them, they are real

Hacking describes its entities realism in the 1983 book " Representing and Intervening ":

He tells of how he learns of an attempt in neighboring physics laboratory: It was an experiment conducted by physicists at Stanford University, in which it came to demonstrate independent quarks with a charge of 1/3e. Achieve this, bring a ball of niobium ( one drop) on their superconducting temperature of 9 K and gradually changes its charge. Now it is found in the transition from negative to positive charge (or vice versa), whether this is done at a charge of 0 or approximately 1 / 3e or -1/3e. The latter is done, it is believed that there is a free curd on the ball. On the question of how to change the charge of the niobium ball, hacking quotes his acquaintance with the words "At this stage we spray them with positrons to increase the charge or with electrons to reduce them." From this description decides hacking ( his own legend, ) to believe in the existence of electrons, and thus a form of scientific realism.

Real entities

Understanding the causal properties of an entity enables them to be used as a tool. Thus, this entity is more than a mental construct for hacking, it is not only for " saving the phenomena " (such as Bas van Fraassen thinks ), but as a (possible ) tool. The way in which experimenters are (scientific ) entity- realists, is not a problem for hacking.

No theories - realism

In contrast, a theory - realism, ie the belief that it goes into scientific theories true, no reason for hacking. The experimenter himself does not believe in a particular theory. There are often many researchers with different beliefs, even within a research group, which conducts an experiment. Occasionally someone will even consulted, which has completely different views to explain a phenomenon. Also, the average of all theories can not be characterized as the belief of the experimenters, as it is not given to me, that this theory average is a theory itself. A research group usually has a lot of common beliefs, but this is simply a sociological fact, this average does not necessarily forms a theory. ( This includes hacking seamlessly with the reasoning of Cartwright on. )

• Philosophy of Science