How realistic is my vision of the world? - 6 760 000 000 results (0,56 s) as of 4.12.2021
‘Non-realists fail to make a distinction between the world and our knowledge of it, and so end up imagining either that the discourses or types of knowledge are simple reflections of it (positivism), or that conversely the world is a product of our knowledge (idealism). Both these views make it difficult to see how knowledge can be fallible. For realists, the fallibility of knowledge suggests that the world is not just whatever we care to imagine. When we make mistakes, are surprised by events, or crash into things, we sense the ‘otherness’ of the world, its independence from our ideas about it. The implications of this are double-edged: on the one hand, this otherness or independence of the world implies that the task of developing ideas that can make sense of it is going to be inherently difficult; on the other hand, the very fact that we can often realize when we have got things wrong, through getting some negative feedback from the world, implies that distinguishing among the various properties of the world is not impossible.The very fact that we can successfully do so many things through our practical interventions in the world suggests that the knowledge informing those interventions has at least some ‘practical adequacy’. The flat earth theory was quite practically adequate for many activities, even though we might want to say now that it was untrue. The round earth theory is more practically adequate than this, enabling us to do new things like putting satellites into orbit, but it’s not perfect (the world seems not to be perfectly spherical).’
Sayer, A. (2006). Realism as a basis for knowing the world. Approaches to Human Geography: Philosophies, Theories, People and Practices, 106-116.