gnostic
The Lost One
I certainly found no use for metaphysics.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Metaphysics: Is metaphysics better than science?
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
as philosophy
"Honey scientifically speaking your mentsral cycle is effecting your ability to think logically like me"
You started a thread about metaphysics so you found some usage for it!
There are a lot if really horrid scientists as philosophy writers whom make a very good living promoting horrid philosophy validated by the audience because they do science. often times science backgrounds are used as an excuse to start spouting nonsense well beyond science.
And that unto itself a statement by Him that's bad science and bad philosophy!!!!
She's directly pointing to the TOE DELUSION in science. That common.
gnostic
The Lost One
There is a deeply synesthesetic quality I really like about Buddhism. There is the story of the master who was walking by two students one day and one of them stopped him and asked " master we disagree as to what is moving what. I say the wind is moving the flags, he says the flag is moving the wind" the master said" it's neither it's your minds that are moving".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.)
That stillness is nearly impossible for us. But if we can, the world around us is no longer a dead phenomena but becomes alive in it's own way. Or that's what happens for me at least. The trees are no longer resource, or objects, but beings, being trees. Tree make more sense than people at that point.
Ha!!!How can my digits on my feet be delusional?
...I’m kidding.
As opposed to steven hawking, Feynman was an interesting scientist he was more interested in questions. And he was fairly indifferent to Theory Of Everything.i actually don't think it was all that important to him.
Scientists like theologians and or any singular department at the University is driven often times by group think. Most of our debates here really is one group think disagreeing with another group think with neither saying much since they both lock in on answers rather than questions.
From what I have seen, most working scientists don't consider metaphysics at all, except perhaps over drinks with friends. The subject simply has no relevance to their professional lives.
Metaphysics *supposedly* looks at the nature of existence, the ways we can arrive at knowledge, the foundation for understanding the world around us, etc. Supposedly it forms the basis of how science is done.
But, in practice, those doing metaphysics seem to have made assumptions about how reality *must* be that are in conflict with how reality actually is.
So, for example, we have the concepts of causality as described by Aristotle 2300 years ago. Most of his about physics, though, is woefully out of date (of course, how could they not be?). So his views of the nature of causality *should* have been discarded hundreds of years ago, but we still see philosophers arguing in favor of them now.
We can point to the old ideas of there being four elements, or the classical ideas about atomism. While these were interesting *speculation*, even the atomist viewpoint has little bearing on the *modern* views of atoms. So, even in these cases, the metaphysics is irrelevant to the development of physics or, indeed, of understanding.
Then we get to ideas concerning 'necessary' or 'contingent' existence. Once again, these divisions are *completely* irrelevant to actually doing science or finding things out about the universe. part of the problem is the underlying assumptions about causality (again) and how things 'must be'.
I think philosophers would be well served if they actually studied some modern physics. It would eliminate a lot of the speculations about time and causality, I think. It would also point to the errors that have pervaded philosophical discourse for thousands of years. Having a bit of math (set theory, understanding partial orders, relations, etc) would greatly help with eliminating a host of bad arguments that have been around for way too long.
So, ultimately, I think that modern philosophy has managed to write itself out of the game by holding to outdated ideas and methods and not coming to grips with the information coming out of physics over the last century. This is why the vast majority of working scientists simply consider metaphysics to be useless or false.
On the other hand, I *do* think there are some serious philosophical issues that can be illuminated by the results of modern physics. While philosophers have been in their armchairs speculating about how things 'must be', actual scientists have been doing experiments and observations that reveal aspects of how it 'actually is'.
Metaphysics *supposedly* looks at the nature of existence, the ways we can arrive at knowledge, the foundation for understanding the world around us, etc. Supposedly it forms the basis of how science is done.
But, in practice, those doing metaphysics seem to have made assumptions about how reality *must* be that are in conflict with how reality actually is.
So, for example, we have the concepts of causality as described by Aristotle 2300 years ago. Most of his about physics, though, is woefully out of date (of course, how could they not be?). So his views of the nature of causality *should* have been discarded hundreds of years ago, but we still see philosophers arguing in favor of them now.
We can point to the old ideas of there being four elements, or the classical ideas about atomism. While these were interesting *speculation*, even the atomist viewpoint has little bearing on the *modern* views of atoms. So, even in these cases, the metaphysics is irrelevant to the development of physics or, indeed, of understanding.
Then we get to ideas concerning 'necessary' or 'contingent' existence. Once again, these divisions are *completely* irrelevant to actually doing science or finding things out about the universe. part of the problem is the underlying assumptions about causality (again) and how things 'must be'.
I think philosophers would be well served if they actually studied some modern physics. It would eliminate a lot of the speculations about time and causality, I think. It would also point to the errors that have pervaded philosophical discourse for thousands of years. Having a bit of math (set theory, understanding partial orders, relations, etc) would greatly help with eliminating a host of bad arguments that have been around for way too long.
So, ultimately, I think that modern philosophy has managed to write itself out of the game by holding to outdated ideas and methods and not coming to grips with the information coming out of physics over the last century. This is why the vast majority of working scientists simply consider metaphysics to be useless or false.
On the other hand, I *do* think there are some serious philosophical issues that can be illuminated by the results of modern physics. While philosophers have been in their armchairs speculating about how things 'must be', actual scientists have been doing experiments and observations that reveal aspects of how it 'actually is'.
gnostic
The Lost One
I don’t consider myself as a scientist, let alone a physicist.
I considered myself more of engineer in civil and in computer science, so I did have to learn some physics that apply to these different areas.
My point is that even I find modern metaphysics to be outdated and useless.
One of the core issues that I have with metaphysics, is to think that any claim of existence of reality and the causality of such reality be solved by deductive or axiomatic logic alone, particularly using the First Principle.
But the first principle offer leads to unsupported speculation because it is usually derived from a priori thinking, hence metaphysics required no evidence.
One of the reasons why I have brought up metaphysics here, is because of my argument with @cladking (at Ancient Reality thread), where he thinks metaphysics formed the basis of science, but I think such connection between metaphysics and science is old and outdated view.
gnostic
The Lost One
Unless the philosophers are actually working scientists, they generally do no work other sprouting ideas and conjectures. And without actual observations and evidences, such ideas and conjectures are generally baseless.
Metaphysicists or metaphysicians usually fall under the category of armchair philosophers.
Last edited:
Precisely. In metaphysics, we learn more about the biases of the philosopher than we do about the nature of reality.
Philosophers like to claim that metaphysics is the basis of all investigation, but in practice most scientists find philosophy irrelevant to their work (at best) except when it is actually so wrong as to be harmful.
As far as I can tell, no philosopher even conceived of the possibilities for time and space that came out of special relativity, let alone general relativity. No philosopher imagined the issues with causality and 'reality' that came out of quantum mechanics. Even today, they struggle to deal with these subjects, often gravitating to interpretations that are, frankly, well out of the scientific consensus (like Bohmian mechanics) simply because they wish to keep their classical ideas.
Ultimately, you cannot figure out the nature of the universe simply by thinking about it. At some point, you actually have to *look* around you and see what is there.
gnostic
The Lost One
What I highlighted is how cladking think about metaphysics in his thread Ancient Reality. You have read his replies at Ancient Reality, and have discuss this with cladking on such matters about metaphysics and science. To give you examples from Ancient Reality:
He think “real science” needs metaphysics, so without metaphysics it isn’t science, and any scientific theory would collapse.
He misunderstand observation and think that experiments are not “observations”. He think observation are the “Look and See science”, therefore not real science.
But experiments are observations too.
And he is missing the point why there is a Peer Review.
But more importantly he think metaphysics is required to interpret the evidences or experiments.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Science doesn't exist without language. Even mathematics needs a mathematical language to exist.
There is no word in the English language that really means precisely what I mean by "metaphysics". But according to the 1952 unabridged Funk and Wagnalls this word means almost exactly what I mean by the "definitions and axioms that underlie science". I'm not talking about empty words, rhetoric, semantics, or philosophy here; I'm talking about the meaning of science and this meaning only exists in the terms that define science and how it works. I can't just say that the moon is made of green cheese and then continually adjust my data, experiments, and definitions in order to prove my point because this lies outside of the "basis of science".
People keep hearing woo or philosophy when I use the term but "philosophy" is irrelevant except as it impacts our fundamental assumptions about the natures of reality, our existence, and nature. Every time we perform experiments we must refer to these assumptions because they underlie our beliefs. At every step of the scientific method our beliefs are front and center because these are what we experience and how we experience everything.
You'll hear me say that science is a division of or is subsumed by philosophy but this is not the point. This is not what I'm saying. I am saying that without assumptions there is no science and that the definitions and axioms that form the basis of science also delineate the meaning of experiment. This isn't to say that no science can exist without assumptions because there once was one (many really), simply that due to the way we are programmed by our modern languages there are assumptions and must be. Many of the assumptions we make go back to Newton and his belief in "laws' that govern nature but our assumptions are more varied and more extensive than this. "Metaphysics" of our science is really fairly simple (other than experimental results) but outside of these axioms science has no meaning. We assume the laws of physics exist and it is axiomatic that theory is correct until shown otherwise. We assume we can interpolate and extrapolate experimental results it is axiomatic that experiment discloses reality. We assume peers are most capable of judging hypothesis, it is axiomatic that experiment must be repeatable. We assume statistics are reflective of reality, it is axiomatic that mathematical processes must be correct.
At every stage our beliefs and our axioms expressed in language affect every single step of the scientific method. Look And See Science and Peer Review are outside of metaphysics and hence are not science at all. No science and not even experimental results have meaning outside of the "basis of science"; its metaphysics.
Epistemology and metaphysics, by any name at all, are fundamental to our existence. The fact that we haven't the tools to properly define and study these is irrelevant to the fact they underlie us and our science. I believe there are several steps that can be taken to get us on the road of the proper study and understanding. First some concrete definitions need to be established and then a 7th step added to the process. No, not "peer review" but rather "metaphysical implications".
https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_downlo...etaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Science.pdf
We really should be paying a great deal more attention to our assumptions and beliefs. We really should return to teaching metaphysics virtually on the parents' knees. Things like parallax should be taught at a very young age as a part of making proper observation.
Right. Coming in with a viewpoint to be proved isn't doing science. If you assume the moon is made of green cheese, your observations won't fit your theory.
From what I understand of this, it is wrong. See below.
Only in the sense that we are testing patterns we have noticed to see if they continue.
Actually, the idea of a natural law goes back way before Newton. Certainly Galileo had it. But it was commonly discussed among philosophers in the middle ages.
Which axioms are you talking about? Can you be specific?
No, that is precisely wrong. We assume it is wrong and try to show it fails. When the theory holds up in spite of that, we gain confidence in it.
Nope. it is just found that math is the best language to use for exploring subjects like physics. It isn't as good in biology, for example.
Experiments that aren't repeatable aren't useful for testing ideas. There are simply too many interpretations that are possible.
You have this phrase 'Look and See science' that I don't understand. Yes, ALL science is based on observation. Experiments are *one* type of observation, but not the only type. Peer Review is simply a way to spread the ideas and keep people a bit more honest.
A horrible idea since nobody agrees on which metaphysical assumptions to abide by.
I think exactly the opposite. I think we should encourage children to explore and observe closely. Parallax is a very specific tool for very specific situations.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Many of these tend to be mathematical in nature.
It is axiomatic that reality is laid out in four dimensions and that these dimensions apply everywhere. We take it as a given that we can count things and that we can define proper samples for counting. We make extrapolations from experiment but while this isn't axiomatic we still treat it as though it is.
We use numerous axioms and definitions but these are rarely systematically questioned. In Physics this isn't so serious a problem but it certainly is as you get into the "sciences" where true experiment is impossible.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Exactly my point.
We need to standardize some definitions and build a more logic based "philosophy" for the discussion of experimental results and metaphysics.
I'm surprised. Why shouldn't children learn about the meaning of science and scientific inquiry as they are learning theory and methodology?
You miss my point. When we perform a complex experiment we don't simultaneously test or experiment on its component parts. I'm not talking about checking the pressure gauges, I'm talking about not checking to make sure that theory related to pressure works.
I'm pretty familiar with the axioms of math. I also know that there are several different ways of doing such axiomatzations.
Actually, none of these are axiomatic. They are the results of observation and testing. For example, it is possible to model some aspects of physics with more than four dimensions. we don't assume that counting *always* works in the real world or that proper names are useful.
Actually, I find these to be pretty naive concerning how science and math are actually done.
And the problem is that 'logic' is useless until there are other assumptions. Logic alone says NOTHING about reality.
In a sense, we do. But since those components are typically tested extensively previously, this isn't as often relevant. However, doing calibration tests is crucial for any new equipment. that amounts to testing how the components work together.
But it *has* been checked extensively. That is why we can use the gauge at all. And, it is *possible* that we get into situations that have not been tested, in which case, we *are* testing the theory.