Dobzhansky said "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", and I would borrow that expression and say, "Nothing anywhere makes sense except in the light of realism".
Yet it elicited an impression of being forced to believe.
An accurate one, except that the forcing is not being done by any agent, human or divine. The world ineluctably is, whether we like it or not: we have no freedom at all to choose what is true, only to choose what to do about it.
Now I'm relieved to know that in near mode, she's a complete realist. This craziness only shows up in far mode.
Stick to near mode, then. Point out in some concrete instance of what she does in everyday life, that she can choose only actions, not truths.
Dobzhansky said "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", and I would borrow that expression and say, "Nothing anywhere makes sense except in the light of realism".
Yes, what a fool Leibniz must have been for thinking Newtonianism, arguably the most successful scientific theory in history, merely a good tool for predicting the motion of bodies, rather than being The Truth of Reality. Oh wait...
Actually, Putnam's "no miracles" argument (scientific realism "is the only philosophy that doesn't mak...
From Being a Realist (even if you believe in God):
My mother, who doesn't call herself a theist (I think she's agnostic), doesn't even accept realism. She doesn't even agree with this:
That's little more than tautologies here. Yet it elicited an impression of being forced to believe. I know because she told me about the totalitarian dangers from such narrow thinking.
I'm happy to have finally found the root cause of our ongoing disagreement, but now, how can I deal with that? It looks pretty hopeless, but just in case, does someone have a suggestion, or should I just leave it at that? (My ego doesn't like it, but giving up is an option.)
Now I'm relieved to know that in near mode, she's a complete realist. This craziness only shows up in far mode.