Metaphysics: Is metaphysics better than science?

[Willamena]

I do agree with you, that science is trying to answer the HOW questions (eg how does it work, or how to make use of it), whether by bits or by whole, as you put on.

Science is also in the business of answering the WHAT questions too.

Dr. Hawking once said that metaphysics (and philosophy in general) was no longer needed, because physics would answer the 'what.'

Still waiting.

 

[gnostic]

Dr. Hawking once said that metaphysics (and philosophy in general) was no longer needed, because physics would answer the 'what.'

Still waiting.

I am thinking you are confusing the WHAT questions with the WHY.

Most philosophies focused on the WHY.

Science are more focused on WHAT and HOW. The WHICH, WHERE and WHEN are also important.

Take for instance, in biology, where they (biologists) are involved in defining species and grouping them into a particular taxonomic genera and families. Such definitions are used to explain WHAT is that species; grouping them into their specific genus would explain the WHICH, as well as they would explain WHEN and WHERE, as these 3 are related.

 

[cladking]

The role of metaphysics is not to define, but to fracture the world into 'bits' and classify them into groupings. Effectively, it is naming. The idea is that a larger thing can be known by the assembly of its components.

Science, on the other hand, makes use of those 'bits' to describe the way things work in theory. Science is the "how," and metaphysics is the "what."

They are as related as the how is to the what--no more, no less.

My contention is that language forces taxonomies on us. They serve as a sort of mnemonic to remember attributes and characteristics of what are really disparate items. We don't need to remember that rabbits, deer, and aardvarks have fur, bear live young, and skeletons because we know they are mammals. This differentiation isn't really natural or the platypus wouldn't even exist but it's a handy way to remember a lot of data.

I don't really disagree with you so much as I believe the perspective is too narrow. No matter how closely we define things the categories are restrictive. "Planets are objects that orbit the sun but not other objects" doesn't at all limit the number of possible choices in our solar system and strictly speaking it nullifies many of what we call planets because moons actually orbit the center of gravity of the planet/ moon system exactly as the planet does. If there were a "moon" of about equal size as the planet then are they two moons or two planets? Where is the line drawn?

Most "real" theories are not dependent on semantics but the way we perceive things is.

 

[Willamena]

I am thinking you are confusing the WHAT questions with the WHY.

Most philosophies focused on the WHY.

Science are more focused on WHAT and HOW. The WHICH, WHERE and WHEN are also important.

Take for instance, in biology, where they (biologists) are involved in defining species and grouping them into a particular taxonomic genera and families. Such definitions are used to explain WHAT is that species; grouping them into their specific genus would explain the WHICH, as well as they would explain WHEN and WHERE, as these 3 are related.

I don't think I was.

Definitions don't explain "what a species is," they simply provide parameters for the naming and categorizing of it.

 

[cladking]

Is this argument with gnostic really about them being the same thing, though (metaphysics and science)?

No. Not in my opinion. It appears he is using different definitions of the terms "metaphysics" and "science". He seems to think "metaphysics" applies only to woo or to philosophy and I'm using it to refer to the basis of science. He uses the term "science" to refer to what "scientists' do and includes just about everyone in the term. Few "scientists" are actually engaged in real science now days. Of course this depends on how inclusively it is defined.

I don't believe it's possible to understand science without some knowledge of metaphysics. Of course modern metaphysics (as I refer to it) is not very complicated but the fact that many don't understand is proven by the BS science being done now. Pure nonsense is held up as "science" now days and is voted as "real" by "peers". We jumped the tracks in the 19th century and nobody noticed.

 

[Willamena]

I don't really disagree with you so much as I believe the perspective is too narrow. No matter how closely we define things the categories are restrictive. "Planets are objects that orbit the sun but not other objects" doesn't at all limit the number of possible choices in our solar system and strictly speaking it nullifies many of what we call planets because moons actually orbit the center of gravity of the planet/ moon system exactly as the planet does. If there were a "moon" of about equal size as the planet then are they two moons or two planets? Where is the line drawn?

Most "real" theories are not dependent on semantics but the way we perceive things is.

The categories will invariably be restrictive, limiting, confined to their parameters. To say a dog is a cat will create a cognitive dissonance. The line is drawn where meaning and use ends.

 

[cladking]

I would like to focus on just metaphysics and science.

I might suggest you just ignore it like you do in the other thread.

 

[Willamena]

No. Not in my opinion. It appears he is using different definitions of the terms "metaphysics" and "science". He seems to think "metaphysics" applies only to woo or to philosophy and I'm using it to refer to the basis of science. He uses the term "science" to refer to what "scientists' do and includes just about everyone in the term. Few "scientists" are actually engaged in real science now days. Of course this depends on how inclusively it is defined.

I don't believe it's possible to understand science without some knowledge of metaphysics. Of course modern metaphysics (as I refer to it) is not very complicated but the fact that many don't understand is proven by the BS science being done now. Pure nonsense is held up as "science" now days and is voted as "real" by "peers". We jumped the tracks in the 19th century and nobody noticed.

To be fair, the word "metaphysics" for many does mean little more than woo. And I get that: applying the term to a "bigger picture," but going too far.

I agree with you about many things, like the 19th Century, with the rise of printed information made freely available to the public, who promptly applied the public imagination. But I wouldn't go so far as to equate (or conflate) metaphysics with science. Each are far too valuable in their own form.

 

[cladking]

The categories will invariably be restrictive, limiting, confined to their parameters. To say a dog is a cat will create a cognitive dissonance. The line is drawn where meaning and use ends.

Indeed!

But the reality is that there are neither dogs nor cats. There are only individual things. We can define feline characteristics and physiology but there are still no two identical cats. We can count, multiply, and divide cats and dogs but half a cat can't exist and there wouldn't be another like it if it could. This means our beliefs necessarily creeps into our metaphysics and even scientific results. But far more importantly we lose sight of the nature of these results and lose sight of the fact that extrapolations and interpolations of knowns and experiment are not necessarily legitimate.

You simply can't multiply planets so even the word "planet" implies we know far more about the reality of what is orbiting the sun than we really do.

 

[Willamena]

Indeed!

But the reality is that there are neither dogs nor cats. There are only individual things. We can define feline characteristics and physiology but there are still no two identical cats. We can count, multiply, and divide cats and dogs but half a cat can't exist and there wouldn't be another like it if it could. This means our beliefs necessarily creeps into our metaphysics and even scientific results. But far more importantly we lose sight of the nature of these results and lose sight of the fact that extrapolations and interpolations of knowns and experiment are not necessarily legitimate.

You simply can't multiply planets so even the word "planet" implies we know far more about the reality of what is orbiting the sun than we really do.

To be fair, there are no individual things either.

Buddhism teaches that everything is made of everything else: a flower is made of sunshine, cellulose, soil, water, and all the other things that make what we call "flower" possible. But in itself, it is nothing more than a name.

It's not that belief informs metaphysics, but that metaphysics (the process of naming things) informs everything, and we believe in what we've named. We believe there is a flower.

As to whether "there is a flower," metaphysically speaking, I say it is no less a flower for being a just a flower in name.

(Edit: Good book, if you want to read more about it.)

 

[cladking]

But I wouldn't go so far as to equate (or conflate) metaphysics with science. Each are far too valuable in their own form.

I agree.

In its broadest sense "metaphysics" is similar to science but I rarely mean this. I usually use the term to refer to the definitions, axioms and process of science rather than experimental results.

I'm not a "proper" metaphysician but when I refer to myself as such I just mean I'm a generalist with an interest in epistemology and ontology. My interests lie in the nature of thought and how the brain functions. This very much applies to the way individuals perceive science and its meanings.

 

[cladking]

To be fair, there are no individual things either.

Buddhism teaches that everything is made of everything else: a flower is made of sunshine, cellulose, soil, water, and all the other things that make what we call "flower" possible. But in itself, it is nothing more than a name.

It's not that belief informs metaphysics, but that metaphysics (the process of naming things) informs everything, and we believe in what we've named. We believe there is a flower.

As to whether "there is a flower," metaphysically speaking, I say it is no less a flower for being a just a flower in name.

(Edit: Good book, if you want to read more about it.)

In my next life I'm gonna be a Buddhist.

Everything is composed of other things (with the possible exceptions of some kind of quark or a moment) but I believe living things are irreducible below the individual. Of course we have parts and the parts have parts but our consciousness is unique to the individual and the aggregation of its parts.

I'll check out the link when I have more time.

 

[Willamena]

I agree.

In its broadest sense "metaphysics" is similar to science but I rarely mean this. I usually use the term to refer to the definitions, axioms and process of science rather than experimental results.

I'm not a "proper" metaphysician but when I refer to myself as such I just mean I'm a generalist with an interest in epistemology and ontology. My interests lie in the nature of thought and how the brain functions. This very much applies to the way individuals perceive science and its meanings.

Pleased to meet you.

 

[Willamena]

In my next life I'm gonna be a Buddhist.

Everything is composed of other things (with the possible exceptions of some kind of quark or a moment) but I believe living things are irreducible below the individual. Of course we have parts and the parts have parts but our consciousness is unique to the individual and the aggregation of its parts.

I'll check out the link when I have more time.

No exceptions.

Consciousness is the epitome of aggregate parts, made up of everything it isn't.

 

[gnostic]

Definitions don't explain "what a species is," they simply provide parameters for the naming and categorizing of it.

There are valid reasons why biology named and categorized animals, by specific species and animals.

Without definitions, do we call all animals and plants just “thing”. That can be very confusing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don’t view metaphysics as science, and yet some people do.

What is the real value of metaphysics?

And why do you you think metaphysics better than science? Or why do you think it is better than other philosophies?

I think metaphysics is completely useless and meaningless.

 

[sealchan]

I don’t view metaphysics as science, and yet some people do.

What is the real value of metaphysics?

And why do you you think metaphysics better than science? Or why do you think it is better than other philosophies?

We use our brains to do science, we understand what our brains do via science. The problem of self-reference makes it both seem plausible to and become practical that we attempt to "look outside" this self-referential loop with "metaphysics".

 

[exchemist]

I don’t view metaphysics as science, and yet some people do.

What is the real value of metaphysics?

And why do you you think metaphysics better than science? Or why do you think it is better than other philosophies?

I struggle to think of anyone who thinks metaphysics is science. Have you met such a person and how does this manifest itself?

But I can think of some people, including me, who think some "science" is perilously close to metaphysics, for example some of these cosmological speculations that seem to be untestable.

 

[cladking]

We use our brains to do science, we understand what our brains do via science. The problem of self-reference makes it both seem plausible to and become practical that we attempt to "look outside" this self-referential loop with "metaphysics".

Indeed!

And if I'm right that we think in language and experience only our beliefs then even our attempt to look outside the loop is greatly complicated.

Even as we seek new perspectives from which to see our knowledge we carry much of our original perspective as language. It's very difficult to jettison taxonomies, beliefs, and the way we think so we can look at science and scientific results from other perspectives free of semantics and belief.

Pleased to meet you.

My pleasure.

 

[viole]

I don’t view metaphysics as science, and yet some people do.

What is the real value of metaphysics?

And why do you you think metaphysics better than science? Or why do you think it is better than other philosophies?

I think metaphysics is cool to discuss with friends after a few beers. I myself have fun talking about philosophy and such.

However, I also believe it is fundamentally useless.

Ciao

- viole