blah blah blah philoso-mumbo-jumbo
A Refutation of Laudan
I'm not a student of philosophy (I'm a math guy), so reading posts like yours and the paper you suggested (which I did, in it's entirety) tends to give me a headache. Laudan uses straw-men to a notable degree, and even then I didn't find his claims convincing. If you have problems with the refutation that you want addressed and/or would prefer a more detailed response, I will begrudgingly oblige.
On a related note, can somebody explain to me why philosophers require so many words to say so very little?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to realism. I think that some
form of realism must be correct. I was taking issue with the particular points you made. If you find some of the responses to Laudan's argument compelling, then great. I have not the time to give that "refutation" an adequate response, but thanks for linking to it. I study (and write about) this sort of stuff, so that article will be of use for me at some point.
To answer your question about philosophers, you need to understand that even though one may be arguing for an idea that is at bottom quite simple, a lot needs to go into formulating the view, defining terms, and constructing the arguments so as to avoid confusion and achieve a certain degree of rigour. And oftentimes there is a lot more complexity surrounding a relatively simple idea than one might suspect. It is better to be longwinded and clear than brief and unclear.
Also, I don't appreciate you characterizing my previous post as "philoso-mumbo-jumbo." I have not been condescending to you and what I said was quite intelligible and in no way "mumbo-jumbo", so I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from being condescending.