A Middle Path Between Realism and Relativism? I Built a Framework and Need Feedback

Metaphysics & Epistemology
1

I’ve been thinking about the realism/relativism debate and tried to build a middle path. I’d appreciate honest feedback as to what works, what breaks, what I’m missing.

The Core Problem

Consider a jar containing exactly ten marbles. Three observers make claims:

  • Observer A: “There are 7 marbles”
  • Observer B: “There are 13 marbles”
  • Observer C: “There are 1,000,000 marbles”

Classical logic says: only “10” is true; everything else is false. So A, B, and C are both “false.”

But intuitively, A and B seem much closer to the truth than C. There’s a meaningful difference between a small counting error and a complete departure from reality. Yet binary logic cannot distinguish between them.

This tension mirrors the larger realism/relativism debate:

  • Realism: Truth is objective and binary. A statement is either true or false. This protects objectivity but creates rigidity, it cannot distinguish between a near miss and a wild guess.
  • Relativism: Truth depends on perspective. This allows flexibility but loses stable standards.

I wanted a framework that preserves objectivity (like realism) while accounting for degrees of error (like relativism wants to).

The Framework: Participation Model

The model accepts that Absolute Truth (capital-T Truth) is objective and binary. But in most real-world situations, we cannot fully access it. Human perception, memory, and measurement all have limits. We see through a lens, not with perfect clarity.

However, we can still engage with Truth by scaling it down to its essence (T) —the core reality we’re trying to represent. In the marble example, T = 10 marbles. We may not grasp Truth in its totality, but we can grasp enough to have something real to aim at.

The claim: human statements are expressions formed when the essence of Truth is filtered through human limitations. I call that limitation Verfract (v) .

Conceptual equation: T + v = e

  • T = essence of Truth (the 10 marbles)
  • v = Verfract (natural refraction from human limits: perception, memory, measurement error, viewing angle, etc.)
  • e = the expression (the claim someone makes)

Clarification: Verfract can be positive or negative. Saying “7 marbles” gives v = -3 (underestimation). Saying “13 marbles” gives v = +3 (overestimation). The absolute value |v| represents the degree of deviation from Truth.

Important exception: In closed systems like mathematics and logic, we can achieve perfect truth. When we say 2 + 2 = 4, there is no gap between reality and statement. In such cases, v = 0.

A crucial implication: There are no different truths. There is only one Truth (scaled down to its essence T), and different expressions of it. Anything that passes the validity tests has the essence of Truth within it. We cannot outright reject an expression just because it’s not perfectly accurate. Instead, we identify which expressions have lower Verfract as they are closer to the essence.

The Two Validity Gates

Before we can rank expressions by Verfract, we must first determine whether they are valid at all. A claim can fail in two distinct ways.

Gate 1: Source Distortion

The claim is about the wrong subject,or has no real subject at all.

Examples:

  • Someone says “There are 10 marbles” but is looking at a different jar (wrong subject)
  • Someone lies, hallucinates, or guesses without observation (no subject)

When the source is disconnected from the Truth we’re discussing, the claim cannot participate in the essence at all.

Equation: D + v = Invalid Expression
(D = Distortion unrelated to T)

Gate 2: Perceiver Distortion

The claim genuinely attempts to describe the correct subject, but violates basic physical or logical possibility.

Example: Someone looks at a small coffee mug and honestly reports “There are 1,000,000 marbles.” They’re looking at the right jar (so Gate 1 is passed), but their claim contradicts volume, mass, and spatial possibility. The Verfract is so extreme that it destroys the link between observation and expression.

We call this vD (Verfract Distortion)—when the Verfract itself becomes so extreme that it functions as a distortion, breaking the link between essence and expression.

Equation: T + vD = Invalid Expression

Where’s the line? The boundary between high Verfract (valid but inaccurate) and vD (invalid) is context-dependent. “25 marbles” from a small jar might be high Verfract but still possible. “1,000,000 marbles” crosses into impossibility. The framework gives us a way to ask where that line lies, even if the answer depends on context.

If a claim passes both gates, it genuinely attempts to represent the correct reality AND does not violate physical possibility, it qualifies as a valid expression. Only then do we evaluate its degree of accuracy.

Ranking Valid Expressions

Valid expressions differ by degree of Verfract:

  • Low Verfract: |v| is small. Errors are small and understandable: slight miscounting, poor viewing angle, normal perceptual limits. Examples: 7 marbles, 13 marbles.
  • High Verfract: |v| is significant but the claim remains physically possible. Requires stronger assumptions. Examples: 25 marbles, 50 marbles.
  • Extreme Verfract (vD): |v| is so large that the claim becomes impossible. Crosses into invalidity. Example: 1,000,000 marbles.

Verfract is a spectrum, not a binary. The goal of inquiry is to minimize Verfract, to reduce the gap between expression and the essence of Truth.

Evaluating Verfract Without Knowing Truth

Here’s the crucial part: even when Absolute Truth is not fully accessible, we can still rank expressions using objective methods. We may not know exactly how many marbles are in the jar, but we can reliably say that 12 is closer than 25, which is closer than 1,000,000.

How?

  1. Physical constraints: Reality imposes limits. A small jar cannot hold 1,000,000 marbles regardless of perception. Claims that violate physical possibility have objectively higher Verfract. These constraints are not socially constructed—the jar either can or cannot hold that many regardless of what anyone believes.
  2. Logical consistency: Claims that contradict known facts require more assumptions. The more contradictions, the higher the Verfract.
  3. Simplicity (Occam’s razor): To say 12 marbles, you assume a small counting error. To say 1,000,000 marbles, you assume the jar is magically expanded, the marbles are microscopic, or your eyes are completely failing. Higher Verfract = more required assumptions.
  4. Triangulation: When multiple independent observers produce estimates that cluster together, the cluster likely has lower Verfract than outliers. If ten observers guess around 10-13 and one says 1,000,000, the outlier has objectively higher Verfract.
  5. Probability of error: Small perceptual errors are common; massive errors are rare. Given no other evidence, a claim requiring a common error has lower Verfract than one requiring a bizarre error.

These methods allow us to compare expressions without direct access to Absolute Truth. We may not know exactly how many marbles are in the jar, but we can rank claims by how close they likely are.

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to read and respond.

2

So if there are 10 marbles in the jar, and none of the observers says “10”, then how could logic say “10”? From what premises?

Logic is not an observer but a relation between statements.

Realism is the assumption that reality exists independent of observers. There are 10 marbles in the jar regardless of whether observers can count them. That’s rejected by anti-realists such as relativists and constructivists.

But by rejecting realism, they also reject that there is a jar with marbles. One might ask whether they also reject the reality of words, speakers, themselves?

Seeing a visible object through a foggy lens is to see exactly what there is to see under such conditions of observation: a foggy looking object. Now replace the foggy lens with a clear lens, yet the object’s form is still conformed by distance and angle of view. The object looks different from different distances and angles. To assume that it could be otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of observation.

3

Thank you for this. It is really helpful and actually helps me clarify my own framework.

You’re absolutely right to point out that my framework assumes realism. I don’t claim logic observes reality; rather, I assume that reality has a definite state (10 marbles) independent of observers. The framework is for those who accept that starting point. For anti-realists, a different framework would be needed. My goal is to show that if one accepts realism, one can still account for degrees of error without losing objectivity or collapsing into relativism.

When viewing an object through fog, we see exactly what there is to see under foggy conditions. When viewing from a distance, we see exactly what there is to see from that distance. Neither is a “distortion” in the sense of being false. Both are real perceptions.

However, there remains an invariant across these conditions, the object itself, with its properties (size, number, identity). Verfract does not claim that foggy or distant views are false. It claims that they provide incomplete information about the invariant. The goal of inquiry is not to eliminate all conditions of observation and that’s impossible. It is to triangulate across multiple conditions to get closer to the invariant.

In the marble jar, each observer sees the jar from a different angle, with different lighting, different attention. Each sees exactly what there is to see under their conditions. But by comparing multiple observations, we can converge on the invariant: 10 marbles.

4

You might want to take a look at a book titled ‘Starmaking: Realism, Anti-realism, and irrealism’

Or a more critical book titled ‘Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism’.

1 Like
5

Thank you for these recommendations. I will definitely look into these.