Metaphysics: Is metaphysics better than science?

Darkstorn said:

Methodological naturalism is a philosophical view. Naturalism is a philosophical view. The view that everything can be explained with science or evidence alone IS a philosophical view in itself.

Click to expand...

I agreed that Naturalism is philosophy as well as Methodological Naturalism and Metaphysical Naturalism are two different approaches to this philosophy.

But the differences is that Methodological Naturalism approach to come close to using scientific method, which is formulate the hypothesis and test the hypothesis using observation via evidences or experiments.

While Metaphysical Naturalism approach Reality the same ways other non-naturalistic Metaphysics making assumption about Reality without understanding how reality works and without evidences, using the silly First Principle rule.

Once the bloody First Principle is made, it cannot be changed. That’s not how science work.

Methodological Naturalism state that no statements are true, unless it has been thoroughly tested; this is more in parallel with science than Metaphysical Naturalism.

Metaphysical Naturalism is a top-down approach, while Metaphysical Naturalism is bottom-up approach, which is far more objective in understanding nature.

Tell me, Darkstorn, how do you provide principles to something without understanding how nature works?

Metaphysical Naturalism, like all other Metaphysics, is backward, outdated, and utterly useless.

Audie said:

Much easier of course to hide poor technique in "metaphysics"
than in oils on canvas.

Click to expand...

art is not a skill show. when it comes to art indeed (or metaphysics) your everyday reproduction-oriented perspective doesn't work, as long as it makes you value, above all, productiveness and efficiency, despite the merely intellectual nature and uselessness of our subject (and , forget me for saying it, this is why very few women can truely understand art). also, as a medicine student, i don't think anatomy to be more complicated than philology -- although i think that nowadays STEM keeps the best talents while humanities are given the leftovers, because of economic reasons.. but this is just a late-term effect of "democracy", which implies the absolute lack of competent customers.

gnostic said:

I agreed that Naturalism is philosophy as well as Methodological Naturalism and Metaphysical Naturalism are two different approaches to this philosophy.

Click to expand...

Yes but metaphysical naturalism is not the same as "metaphysics."

But the differences is that Methodological Naturalism approach to come close to using scientific method, which is formulate the hypothesis and test the hypothesis using observation via evidences or experiments.

While Metaphysical Naturalism approach Reality the same ways other non-naturalistic Metaphysics making assumption about Reality without understanding how reality works and without evidences, using the silly First Principle rule.

Click to expand...

Once more, Metaphysical Naturalism is a specific philosophical view, it's not a synonym for metaphysics.

Once the bloody First Principle is made, it cannot be changed. That’s not how science work.

Methodological Naturalism state that no statements are true, unless it has been thoroughly tested; this is more in parallel with science than Metaphysical Naturalism.

Metaphysical Naturalism is a top-down approach, while Metaphysical Naturalism is bottom-up approach, which is far more objective in understanding nature.

Tell me, Darkstorn, how do you provide principles to something without understanding how nature works?

(You do realize our understanding of

Metaphysical Naturalism, like all other Metaphysics, is backward, outdated, and utterly useless.

Click to expand...

Once more, you're arguing one philosophical view against another philosophical view. BOTH are different metaphysics. You are unable to see the distinction for some reason.

Tell me, Darkstorn, how do you provide principles to something without understanding how nature works?

Click to expand...

Tell me, biased person, how do you provide principles to something without understanding how nature works? How did they formulate the scientific method?

I don't think you understand the concept that you didn't always HAVE science to work with. People had to throw out ideas that weren't tested, before they were tested for the first time. Hypotheses CONSISTENTLY use *applied* metaphysics. Which is a totally different thing than your tirade against Metaphysical Naturalism.

Darkstorn said:

Don't thank me just yet. If you read into my post, it'll just complicate your worldview too.

/E: Here's the gist of it: You're wrong too. So am i. So which one should everyone believe? No one.

Click to expand...

Yes. I'm well aware I'm wrong as well. This is the nature of the way we think and the complexity of reality itself.

Being wrong is an artefact of beliefs which is an artefact of modern language. Hummingbirds and pyramid builders were never wrong. All God's children make mistakes but I am wrong.

The question though isn't whether anyone is wrong or right. The question is did the ancient use a metaphysical language and construct the pyramids with linear funiculars. Ultimately the question is necessarily a metaphysical one concerning the nature of reality and the metaphysics that underlies our understanding of that reality. Without an understanding of metaphysics we might as well be that hummingbird if I am correct.

IF you are correct. But i think part of the problem is that you seem to be arguing from the side of metaphysical naturalism. Which i'm not a proponent of, and which seems to be confusing the hell out of Gnostic.

Which means, i thinks both of you should consider this "thought experiment" :

There's a huge and incomprehensively(some would say needlessly) complex room called "metaphysics." In one of the infinite corners of this room there's a little girl called "philosophy" blowing bubbles. These bubbles represent different philosophies.

Inside the bubble called "methodological naturalism" is a being called "Gnostic" and inside the "metaphysical naturalism" bubble is you. You're both trying to poke holes into each others' bubbles, without realizing that in order to be able to do that, you'd just break your own bubble. And then you both recoil at the fact that doing so would destroy everything you think you know, and instead of doing any real damage, you both just shout at each other about the merits of each of your bubbles.

And who am I? The guy telling you about the room of course.

Darkstorn said:

IF you are correct. But i think part of the problem is that you seem to be arguing from the side of metaphysical naturalism. Which i'm not a proponent of, and which seems to be confusing the hell out of Gnostic.

Which means, i thinks both of you should consider this "thought experiment" :

There's a huge and incomprehensively(some would say needlessly) complex room called "metaphysics." In one of the infinite corners of this room there's a little girl called "philosophy" blowing bubbles. These bubbles represent different philosophies.

Inside the bubble called "methodological naturalism" is a being called "Gnostic" and inside the "metaphysical naturalism" bubble is you. You're both trying to poke holes into each others' bubbles, without realizing that in order to be able to do that, you'd just break your own bubble. And then you both recoil at the fact that doing so would destroy everything you think you know, and instead of doing any real damage, you both just shout at each other about the merits of each of your bubbles.

And who am I? The guy telling you about the room of course.

Click to expand...

Great analogy but it has two small problems. First is that I'm not espousing any philosophy at all. It seems I am only because of the formatting for my argument. I could use other philosophical formatting but my own thinking apparently is more in line with "metaphysical naturalism" as you define it. I have no desire to to change anyone's formatting but am trying to communicate an entirely different way to see this room you are describing. The room is a construct of every philosophy and means of seeing reality everyone has built since the collapse of Ancient Language. The room occupies a part of all of reality and is composed of thought, belief, and understanding. It is not, however, in any way representative of reality simply because we all share assumptions and beliefs that aren't true. We are not an "intelligent" species. We are not a product of walking upright or opposable thumbs. We were not created in God's image but rather God was created in ours. We can not directly perceive reality no matter how many advanced degrees we have.

Language is the root of many of our false beliefs. When Ancient Language failed many attempts were made to preserve ancient knowledge and ancient understanding but every single one has been confused and have the laid the basis for our false assumptions. "I think therefore I am" is mere poppycock. The reality is everything either exists or it does not and the seeds of everything that will exist already exist and such it has always been.

Perspective is everything and the perspective given us by modern language hides many of the fundamental realities of existence. Ancient people called our language "confused" and it very much is. The little girl blowing bubbles is only constrained by the belief that the room is all that exists. My perspective is bad for specialists but it is the only one I know for nexialists.

qaz said:

art is not a skill show. when it comes to art indeed (or metaphysics) your everyday reproduction-oriented perspective doesn't work, as long as it makes you value, above all, productiveness and efficiency, despite the merely intellectual nature and uselessness of our subject (and , forget me for saying it, this is why very few women can truely understand art). also, as a medicine student, i don't think anatomy to be more complicated than philology -- although i think that nowadays STEM keeps the best talents while humanities are given the leftovers, because of economic reasons.. but this is just a late-term effect of "democracy", which implies the absolute lack of competent customers.

Click to expand...

A skill show.... never heard of that.

I cannot off hand think of anything done by
people which cannot be done badly and in an
ugly style.*

I did not think, btw, that comparative vertebrate
anatomy was complicated, at all, But there sure
are a lot of nerves and bones and latin names
to memorize.

*including dissecting a cat

cladking said:

It seems I am only because of the formatting for my argument.

Click to expand...

My argument is simply that "metaphysics" exists by definition and that any understanding of what we know is necessarily dependent on that metaphysics.

Ancient people called it knowledge > understanding > creation and we confused this into the "Holy Trinity". Ancients used metaphysical language where this makes sense.

Much of the way I came to this was by reverse engineering the pyramids by means of solving a metaphysical language. Of course I knew these things were true long before solving Ancient Language by context. But now I must try to come to grips with the fact that the "Peers" who now determine the nature of reality are wholly uninterested in how the pyramids were built and in the individuals who actually built them. I must try to explain how it's possible that the Peers refuse to perform any science at all and instead make their pronouncements through near total ignorance as people seem to have no problem with this.

I suppose one could say that the flaws in our understanding go beyond mere metaphysics to the very definitions we use to understand metaphysics. In order to think or communicate we must use language and that language is confused. How can any reality survive this to be correctly perceived? Even where our beliefs are reasonably reflective of reality we still must think in a confused language. We still must find the words to communicate the thought.

cladking said:

The little girl blowing bubbles is only constrained by the belief that the room is all that exists.

Click to expand...

That's breaking the analogy too much. The entire context is within metaphysics(the room.) To imply that metaphysics is itself limited, and that "little girl" an even more limited part of that.

It's just convoluted language for:

Philosophy is based on metaphysics. But they're not directly the same thing.

Darkstorn said:

Philosophy is based on metaphysics. But they're not directly the same thing.

Click to expand...

I agree with your entire post but couldn't agree more with this.

I'm not talking about philosophy in any way, shape, or form. I'm talking about reality itself. I'm talking about how and why we misperceive reality and allow a Peer to define it. I'm talking about why even Peers are ignorant both of the basis of science and because of this they are often ignorant even of what they know. Nothing can be known outside of the basis of the terms and axioms in which it is known.

"Philosophy" is not necessarily founded on metaphysics, of course, and they are hardly the same thing. Philosophy is a perspective but metaphysics is the shoulders on which you stand to gain your perspective.

Audie said:

A skill show.... never heard of that.

Click to expand...

yeah it is a sport expression. i meant that an artwork's quality doesn't depend on its realism.

I cannot off hand think of anything done by
people which cannot be done badly and in an
ugly style.

Click to expand...

that is not the point. pre-historical rock art is a much greater art than that made by e.g. the artistes pompiers in the 19th century, despite the superior technique of the latter.

cladking said:

Philosophy is a perspective but metaphysics is the shoulders on which you stand to gain your perspective.

Click to expand...

Reality is what you might be able to see from the shoulders of giants. We merely confuse the logic of reality with what we call the "laws of nature" because our metaphysics has flaws. "Experiment" makes it seem like nature behaves laws because interpretation is filtered through (product of) our beliefs.

cladking said:

Much of the way I came to this was by reverse engineering the pyramids by means of solving a metaphysical language. Of course I knew these things were true long before solving Ancient Language by context. But now I must try to come to grips with the fact that the "Peers" who now determine the nature of reality are wholly uninterested in how the pyramids were built and in the individuals who actually built them. I must try to explain how it's possible that the Peers refuse to perform any science at all and instead make their pronouncements through near total ignorance as people seem to have no problem with this.

Click to expand...

I wish you would stop using the pyramids as your examples for this thread, because you have already created the thread where we argued at length in Ancient Reality.

And seeing how you cannot help yourself.

There are no texts that provide instructions of how the pyramids were built. There are no building manuals in the Old Kingdom writings that say one way or another, on how these pyramids. It certainly doesn’t exist in the Pyramid Texts.

I have read the Pyramid Texts myself, and most of contain rituals in preserving the bodies for the afterlife, and contain also myths of their religion, which are similar, not exact, in the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts of early 2nd millennium BCE.

These Pyramid Texts are only found in the 5th and 6th dynasties, but not found in the 3rd and 4th dynasties.

The oldest pyramid is the Step Pyramid of Djoser in Saqqara, 3rd dynasty, while the largest pyramid - the Great Pyramid - was built for Khufu, in Giza. Neither have anything (writings) regarding to how to build their pyramids.

You are delusional if you think crack the codes in the Pyramid Texts, by substituting some single words with words that you think that give anyone clues about pyramid building.

You are like Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval making up wild conspiracy theory about how Egyptians built the pyramids and what they used were for. You are doing nothing but using the same pseudo-archaeology as Hancock and Bauval, to prop up your nutty theory.

Second, there no Peer Review on archaeology of Egypt. You are arguing against Peer Review, but there are no such Peer Review used in archaeology or in anthropology, and no peer review for ancient architectural or engineering feats, because the human cultures are far too complex and vary to fit in, so there are no such system are in play that resemble Peer Review.

So your argument against Peer Review is nothing more than attacking straw man. It is simple more of the same paranoia conspiracy theory of yours.

Lastly you have never been to Egypt, and you are not an engineer, so what make you authority on how the pyramids were built?

gnostic said:

Lastly you have never been to Egypt, and you are not an engineer, so what make you authority on how the pyramids were built?

Click to expand...

There are millions of engineers living and dead. Countless thousands have been to Egypt yet not one of them can show how the great pyramids were built. Incredibly one of the stones on the east side can be up to 15 degrees warmer of colder than the surrounding stones and not one of millions of visitors ever noticed it but I predicted it and campaigned for them to do infrared imaging to prove it. Engineers and technicians were telling me I'm nuts because nothing from the inside of G1 could possibly show up on the outside but I predicted there would be a hot stone in October and it would be cold in March.

One doesn't need to be an engineer to know how things work nor a Peer to figure out what someone means by a word.

There are no conspiracies and your claim is one of the many strawmen of which you accuse me.

There are no texts that explain how the pyramids were built but it was the pyramid builders themselves who wrote the Pyramid Texts. They knew exactly how the pyramids were built and this knowledge is reflected in their word choices and it's reflected in the rituals of which they wrote.

This isn't about pyramid builders or pyramids. It's about metaphysics and how it's possible millions of people can walk by hot stones for 12 centuries without even one of them noticing. It's about what we see and what we expect which is a product of metaphysics and knowledge. It is about a language that no Peer ever noticed breaks Zipf's Law and that means exactly what it says about needing two boats tied together so tefnut can build a pyramid. It is about the meaning of what we know and what reality means to animals and pyramid builders.

Of course without understanding that "metaphysics" is the basis of every science and that these sciences are distinctly different due to these metaphysics you just can't see it.

cladking said:

Of course without understanding that "metaphysics" is the basis of every science and that these sciences are distinctly different due to these metaphysics you just can't see it.

Click to expand...

If you ever taught yourself some complex knowledge or activity you might see another kind of metaphysics. This is "visceral knowledge" and logic. When one learns something like swimming fast one must master the subtleties and the body and mind work together. We tend to call most such things "art" but they truly are "science" and we know this because many such things simply don't require anything but knowledge, attention, and repetition. People can get exceedingly good at wide arrays of thought or "sports".

One might even say that "science" is knowledge > understanding > creation. Science can be thought of as the holy trinity but our science makes this almost impossible to see because we believe in false assumptions (like religion is baseless poppycock). "Metaphysics" is the sole (soul?) means of of relating everything to reality. "Metaphysics" is needed to know what we know and to use it independently of our models and beliefs.