Abstract
MUCH in current discussion of scientific method turns on the ancient problem of idealism versus realism. As I understand it, an idealist holds that he is inventing a universe for himself as he goes along, while a realist holds that there is a “universe existing independently of our thought and our examination of it”—to use the words of Prof. Dingle—and that what we are doing in science is to find out something about this universe. Realism has been severely criticized, and some forms of it not too severely. Nevertheless, I do not believe that anybody is an idealist. If an idealist regards the world as a mere mental construct of his own, so are other people, being part of that world. Hence if an idealist argues with other people he must think that he is arguing with his own mental constructs, and all discussion should be futile for him. So far as my observation goes, people that call themselves idealists are at least as argumentative as the rest of mankind ; whereas if their belief was genuine I should have expected them to retire into a state of psychotic isolation.
Article PDF
References
Karl Pearson, "The Grammar of Science".
Jeffreys, "Scientific Inference", 1937.
Jeffreys, Proc. Roy. Soc., A, 160, 330–335 (1937).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
JEFFREYS, H. Science, Logic and Philosophy*. Nature 141, 672–676 (1938). https://doi.org/10.1038/141672a0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/141672a0
This article is cited by
-
Science, Logic and Philosophy
Nature (1938)
-
Experience and convention in physical theory
Erkenntnis (1937)