Should Metaphysics be taught in public school as part of the scientific method i.e. should MP be tau

[MrMrdevincamus]

Or; The Alternative title; Is this a backdoor method of adding ID to the public school curriculum...


I began wondering about the nature of reality and the existence of God and related things when I was nine or ten years old. As a student in public school that's the age my* indoctrination to logical positivism began. In the west only logical positivism is allowed to be taught in public schools. Ok, on to the main topic. Does anyone believe that if a claim of evidence presented it's meaningless if not empirically vetted? In other words who would agree that we should only accept a theory that has been vetted by the scientific method*** ? And that all other evidence is worthless, evidence such as circumstantial or by methods of logic? If that is true you have a lot of company! With all due respect and I do mean that, that view is a dangerous, asinine thing. I am sorry to say a majority of western educated scientists believe exactly that. I could go on but I've probably lost 99% of my readers, and its time for you to have your say.

Lastly (almost, I do ramble on.....) allow me to say I believe we should revive Metaphysics and then teach it with with the currently taught empirical science. When both metaphysical and empirical methods have earned tenure in the school system I am sure science will increase its discovery by orders of magnitude! That's because today there are several areas of science such as cosmology and theories of origins (of the universe) where empirical science is failing to produce verifiable results. Our science is faced with events that are violating scientific laws that have have been place for over 500 years (such as the speed of light apparently being exceeded by deep space objects, and phenomenon such as galaxies receding from earth that are speeding up! There is something wrong toto we ain't in Kansas no mo' ..... and that my RF friends is a true statement.

(BELOW) AN ARTIST'S IDEA OF SPACE TIME FABRIC

 

[Sunstone]

The sciences rely on a combination of logical reasoning and empirical evidence. Metaphysics relies entirely on logical reasoning. Mere logical reasoning can never amount to more than speculation.

 

[YmirGF]

No, little good would be served by introducing metaphysics into the science class framework.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I WILL REPLY SOON, AND POST A DEFINITION OF 'METAPHYSICS' SHORTLY (FORGOT TOO)......AND I WILL DC THE CAPS IMMEDIATELY........

 

[PureX]

No. Metaphysics is not a tangential pursuit of science. Neither are art, or religion. If it must be 'included' as a tangent to some other study curriculum, it probably should be under philosophy, not science.

 

[Audie]

No. Metaphysics is not a tangential pursuit of science. Neither are art, or religion. If it must be 'included' as a tangent to some other study curriculum, it probably should be under philosophy, not science.

Yes, if it must.

 

[siti]

I don't get the poll. I don't understand why the "accuracy" of science (whatever that means) has anything to do with teaching metaphysics in schools. I don't see why you are opposing metaphysics to empiricism - they are not opposed - certainly not of necessity and in terms of philosophical reasoning, they are best seen as complementary approaches.

Somebody mentioned "speculation" - and that's true - metaphysics is largely speculation but done properly it is responsible and reasonable speculation - as opposed to the more common wild and fantastical speculation that is practiced in religious circles.

But here - for the sake of clarity (and entertainment) are the highlights of your OP...

Our science is faced with events that are violating scientific laws that have have been place for over 500 years (such as the speed of light apparently being exceeded by deep space objects, and phenomenon such as galaxies receding from earth that are speeding up!

OK - so your two example of 500-year old laws - the speed of light has only been considered to be a fundamental constant for a little over a century (since 1905 to be precise) and the existence of galaxies other than our own Milky Way was not known at all before the 1920s - let alone that they are receding...and what this shows is not that centuries-old laws are failing but that science is working - we are always faced with events that 'violate' or at least challenge our current scientific models - it is meant to be like that - that's how we refine our understanding.

There is something wrong toto we ain't in Kansas no mo' ..... and that my RF friends is a true statement.

I'm glad you used the example of Oz - when that naughty little pup pulled back the curtain, what did Dorothy see? No great mystery revealed after all - just more of the same reality but obscured by seemingly miraculous sound and light effects - and an increasingly threadbare curtain that barely concealed the truth - there is no Wizard of Oz - just some quaintly misguided old geezer trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes...

...but if we did teach our kids to do metaphysical speculation responsibly and reasonably, I'm sure they'd see through the sham and declare, like Dorothy, "I don't believe you" when faced with preposterous and unsupported claims.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I think it's perfectly fine to have a critical understanding of metaphysics taught in school.

Science does not tell us what is true, it allows us to make assessments about what is true based on what is falsifiable and what is not.

In other words, scientific research replaces our incorrect ideas with less-incorrect ideas. Whether the new ideas are true is another story.
However, science is the best we have.

Somewhat correct, our science theory is at its best an educated guess that fits the evidence of the day. At its worst science theory is a fabrication by a vested interest etc. Not quite as bad is science theory that is a guess made without malice using incomplete, faulty, or inaccurate evidence. So I say that empirical evidence may, with emphasis on may, may be more accurate than other types of evidence. Ignorance is bliss is the saying, but we should not wallow in it, neither should we nearly worship any aspect of science, which has historically shown to be .... wrong.

 

[siti]

...our science theory is at its best an educated guess that fits the evidence of the day. At its worst science theory is a fabrication by a vested interest...

OK - so how is that not better than a blatantly uneducated fabrication by a "vestmented" interest?

Ignorance is bliss is the saying

I'll have to defer to your more informed opinion on that...

but we should not wallow in it

Is that a statement of intent?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Spare the thought. They already have so many subjects to study, and then Mathematics. They won't have time to play games and be with their friends. They would pick up Metaphysics according to their inclination when they grow up and join us here in the forums. One can discuss metaphysics only after they have a broad knowledge of many subjects and some experience of life.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

OK - so how is that not better than a blatantly uneducated fabrication by a "vestmented" interest?I'll have to defer to your more informed opinion on that...

correction; Your quote of "vestmented" should have read 'vested' . I would not brought it to your attention except the two words have very different meanings.

I did not say what if anything was better than the questionable but wonderful tool for discovery (science) we have today. I was pointing out that science (meaning the scientific establishment, its theories and opinions etc) has much room for improvement. Much of that room for improvement is doable today, especially ridding itself of deceit in its many forms. That includes accepting 'payment' for good ole' boy dishonesty and PAC-like special interest groups etc. The good ole boy relationships mean Government/industrial interests etc as well as individuals who have an usually ulterior motive* for producing the results they paid for. The vested interest does not have to be paid in hard money, or paid for tweaking a scientific result that would benefit a corporation or government, it could be the vested interest simply is paying for an opinion on a controversial subject like climate change.

Those 'paid for' opinions can be requested by all kinds of diverse groups and 'movements' including academia (colleges, and those that produce material for universities). That said what do I think would be better than what we have today, or how could science in general be improved? For starters fix the above. The other thing is much more difficult which is switch from an exclusive logical positivist paradigm to a combined paradigm that includes metaphysics. BTW, the world view of positivist only changed really at the beginning of this century. A good read about how metaphysics fairly was snuffed out is (below).

Logical Positivism and the Vienna Circle - Philosophyzer
www.philosophyzer.com/logical-positivism
The Vienna Circle broke up after Schlick’s murder and Hitler’s Anschluss in the late 1930s. With the rise of Nazism, many left for the United Kingdom and America. Although the group dispersed, it has created an influential movement in philosophy

Is that a statement of intent?

Please note I intentionally used a first-person plural personal pronoun, ("we").

 

[Sunstone]

Kids are already loaded up with too much academic time and not enough free time at school. But if I were going to change around their curriculum, I would not add metaphysics. I'd reduce high school mathematics to two years, and add a year of statistics and a year of economics.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I don't get the poll. I don't understand why the "accuracy" of science (whatever that means) has anything to do with teaching metaphysics in schools. I don't see why you are opposing metaphysics to empiricism - they are not opposed - certainly not of necessity and in terms of philosophical reasoning, they are best seen as complementary approaches.

The accuracy of science means exactly what it says. Its track record demonstrates there is much room for improvement. Google the history of fraud and mistakes in science. Empirical science (or LP) is what our science is built on and its the ONLY theory that can be taught in public school. I think science could be improved many ways. But to start the public schools should be required to give students a choice. You should brush up on your history of science etc to include how logical empiricism overtook the world.

Somebody mentioned "speculation" - and that's true - metaphysics is largely speculation but done properly it is responsible and reasonable speculation - as opposed to the more common wild and fantastical speculation that is practiced in religious circles.

Part of the problem with metaphysics is the many definitions (often very vague) and meanings assigned to it. So I put faith in the readership to use the definition of Metaphysics that is most closely related to the discussed topic.

But here - for the sake of clarity (and entertainment) are the highlights of your OP...
OK - so your two example of 500-year old laws

That is of course my bad. The way it was written misleading because it was a cut and paste from my earlier unedited draft. If you had took the time too look (or if you had replied in good faith) I posted many many threads and replies that proves I have a good to above average general knowledge of most science subjects. Again, I what I meant was the laws and claims of science were in error including Newtons laws of gravity (and others) by proof if speeding up receding galaxies etc. But you knew that didn't you?

- the speed of light has only been considered to be a fundamental constant for a little over a century (since 1905 to be precise) and the existence of galaxies other than our own Milky Way was not known at all before the 1920s - let alone that they are receding...

Again you are not reading what I said because your too focused on nit picking. I said the receding galaxies should be slowing down according to Einstein AND Newton, instead they are SPEEDING up. That shows gravity is not behaving by Newtons laws.

and what this shows is not that centuries-old laws are failing but that science is working - we are always faced with events that 'violate' or at least challenge our current scientific models - it is meant to be like that - that's how we refine our understanding.

See above

I'm glad you used the example of Oz - when that naughty little pup pulled back the curtain, what did Dorothy see? No great mystery revealed after all - just more of the same reality but obscured by seemingly miraculous sound and light effects - and an increasingly threadbare curtain that barely concealed the truth - there is no Wizard of Oz - just some quaintly misguided old geezer trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes...

Yes but in this case the old geezer is our science when its misbehaving, and sometimes when its on its best behavior.

.

..but if we did teach our kids to do metaphysical speculation responsibly and reasonably, I'm sure they'd see through the sham and declare, like Dorothy, "I don't believe you" when faced with preposterous and unsupported claims.

I have more faith in the kids intelligence than you it seems. I am sure they would rather have a choice and make up their own minds. If they choose to reject MP, good for them, but it would be their CHOICE, not a world view forced upon them by authority.

Have a blessed day. Btw I love your avatar...Is it a photo...ahhh', better not go there such a remark wouldn't be nice! ~ Have a blessed day~~~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Kids are already loaded up with too much academic time and not enough free time at school. But if I were going to change around their curriculum, I would not add metaphysics. I'd reduce high school mathematics to two years, and add a year of statistics and a year of economics.

We do not agree. Free time? Reduce math? I would increase hours spent in mathematics including advanced mathematics. What would the students do with free time, anything they wish? I feel free time is what children do at home or when they have completed their studies. Do you live in the USA? The USA rates below or mid pack in math and science compared to other G3 nations. That is not acceptable. Here is a quote ; "The most recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science". As I said, there are some areas where the USA at least makes it to the middle of the pack, so its not all bad. Maybe some incentive could be given for students relating to performance and who that take on extra hard science math and other basic courses. With the money we throw at schools our students should be better. Also funds r better yet incentives should be increased to schools in the inner city and other 'disadvantaged' areas students could succeed.

To incorporate metaphysics would take a complete change in the Wests 'world view'. Much like (using a bad analogy) a diabetic changing his complete lifestyle to survive longer. Don't worry its not going to happen for at least a hundred years* mostly for ignorant reasons. Just getting exposure that illustrates why we have a problem is a start.

* If a catastrophic event happened and we survived I would guess metaphysics the church , or religion and other socially dependent activities and organizations would increase dramatically. But even I would not wish for such an event...well maybe a small extinction level event...nah....we are ok , it's just that I like to improve if possible...

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Spare the thought. They already have so many subjects to study, and then Mathematics. They won't have time to play games and be with their friends. They would pick up Metaphysics according to their inclination when they grow up and join us here in the forums. One can discuss metaphysics only after they have a broad knowledge of many subjects and some experience of life.

Forgot to ask, its off topic so you may want to answer by PM if at all. You claim atheism but also say you are advaitist Hindu. How can you be atheist and an advaitist Hindu since the latter is a spiritual religion with supernatural aspects?

 

[Willamena]

Part of the problem with metaphysics is the many definitions (often very vague) and meanings assigned to it. So I put faith in the readership to use the definition of Metaphysics that is most closely related to the discussed topic.

If you leave it others to fill in the gap with whatever they want, then they will--they will fill it in with whatever they want.

 

[siti]

Your quote of "vestmented" should have read 'vested' . I would not brought it to your attention except the two words have very different meanings.

They do but I meant "vestmented" - look up vestment - if you really do have above average intelligence you should be able to see what I mean.

As regards science, what I said does not change as a result of any of your comments - science is meant to be wrong - at least potentially - that's how it works. A major principle of scientific investigation is falsifiability - a hypothesis has to be potentially falsifiable, it has to suggest some empirical/observational/experimental way in which the hypothesis could potentially be shown to be wrong. Explanations that cannot be shown to be wrong even if they are wrong are sometimes referred to as "not even wrong" - string "theory" is an example - it (actually they because there's a whole tangled mess of string "theories") fails to make the grade because it is not - at least not yet - potentially falsifiable. We have no way of detecting, observing or measuring them experimentally to see if they are really, really there. These "theories" (which really shouldn't be called "theories" in the scientific sense of the word) are logically sound and mathematically consistent - but we have no idea whether the really describe anything that actually exists in the real world and no way of testing that. String theory is an example of speculative metaphysics in my opinion - and, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with that. But it is not "science" in the normally accepted tradition of the scientific method.

I suppose there could be an argument (as you seem to be suggesting) that such ideas should indeed be admitted to the fold of scientific "theories" and that as long as a metaphysical speculation is sound and reasonably consistent with what we already know about the world and how it works, then it should be admitted as "science" too. I'm not at all comfortable with that. I am prone to a bit of metaphysical speculation myself, and whilst I do try to make my speculations consistent with science I would never in a month of Sundays presume to suggest that they were science.

But I do think that science and metaphysics (done properly) can together form a body of knowledge we might call a collection of "reasonable ideas about the world" - that is, after all, what we all want to have - I suppose. And I think that teaching kids how to reason logically and how to distinguish between positive scientific knowledge about the world and reasonable metaphysical speculation - and more importantly, how to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable speculation - would certainly be useful to the children of my grandchildren's generation. Some of the entirely unreasonable stupidity that defines the religious and political discourse of humanity - still, as my generation approaches its declining years well into the first quarter if the 21st century - has to be turned around some time - and with climate change denial, anti-scientific creationism and religious fanaticism still topping the agenda I don't see it happening in my life time. I can only hope our kids and grandkids have more sense and if we can teach them how to do metaphysics properly so that they can finally throw off the shackles of inherited, religiously motivated and preposterously bad metaphysics then well and good. But if you mean to allow them to be indoctrinated as we were then no thanks.

And BTW - metaphysics is not a worldview - its a method of inquiry - like science only different.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Much of that room for improvement is doable today, especially ridding itself of deceit in its many forms. That includes accepting 'payment' for good ole' boy dishonesty and PAC-like special interest groups etc.

This type of thing exists in 'applied sciences' (e.g., speaking for the efficacy of a drug that may not be as effective as claimed). But this does not happen in 'pure sciences'.

The USA rates below or mid pack in math and science compared to other G3 nations.

That is correct. I know of Indian students who were considered mediocre here turning into brilliant students when they took up studies in the US. But then, we perhaps have the lowest population to Olympic medal ratio (Chinese seem to be doing nicely on both the counts).

But then, I am impressed by the knowledge of US people at the bachelors or masters level. My bachelors knowledge does not compare with the level there. We have a big problem there.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

If you leave it others to fill in the gap with whatever they want, then they will--they will fill it in with whatever they want.

Oh yes, ha ha...but I like to give those that have a wild side or that think outside the box an option to be heard. The people who take a walk on the wild side occasionally can be the most interesting. Depending on the situation they are oftentimes my favorite people ~

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd prefer that more time be devoted to teaching math.
And I propose a division in the curriculum....
1) For those applying it already or later, eg, engineering, physics, continue studying new topics.
2) For those who don't more advanced topics, work on applications.
For the #2 types, I've found that people are poor at using even basic arithmetic & algebra.
And yet, these things are needed in daily life, eg, rent proration, interest calculation.
These skills should be reinforced with real life applications.

I bring this up because I heard an interview on NPR with a pollster. She explained
the difficulty in making predictions about who has what probability of winning.
What was her groundbreaking solution to misunderstanding of poll statistics?
Instead of saying that Joe Smith has a "17%" chance of winning,
say that it's a "1 in 6" chance of winning.
You many imagine my mental face palm upon hearing the need for that.