Basic philosophy link The debate about reality and its representation is of a philisophical nature, and the object of some confrontations between natural scientists and social scientists.
To give an idea, here is a discussion on the subject by
critical realist Neville Spencer Here's a brief explanation that was given to me in a conversation, to update with a valid reference:
"
Let us talk epistemology and ontology. Epistemology is what we are able to know. Ontology is what is real. is there a gap? Here is the four square logic of philosophy. Positivist = true epistemology and ontology. One world, one reality, either we get it right or we don't. Authoritarian universe. Positivist. Pure law-like reality. Okay. True epistemology, weak ontology, means we can know things but their reality is questionable. This is a focus on a socially constructed world. Here we can know why we behave but its all arbitrary. most social scientists are in this camp, explaining why we do what we do for no good, pure, ultimate reason. Then there is a true real world and a weak knowledge. this means we are living under chaos and complexity theory, meaning we are the problem and laws govern our false sense of meaning because we mistake complexity for sentience. cognitively biased more or less. Economists win of a cognitive nature, and all meaning is false. Just error in calculation. Then there is a world we neither know or can measure, and this is a post-modern world. That is a waste of time because then there is no point of arguing because there is no reference point for saying anyone is right or wrong, and thus there is no law of reason nor morals. Supe-rmench wins , no truth matters nor can we know it wins. So.....effectively: where are we?"