Total Posts:151|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Against Metaphysics

Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
...or at least a huge chunk of it.

Metaphysics is (with a few notable exceptions) not based on scientific argument or otherwise empirical justification. Instead, most metaphysics is argued using a priori intuitions, where "that doesn't seem right" can be a legitimate reason to think something is false. But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality? After all, the things we do know about the world, the things we can and have verified, more often than not turn out to be not at all intuitive.

What reasons are there to think we can know the truths of metaphysics?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Perussi
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 11:39:16 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
...or at least a huge chunk of it.

Metaphysics is (with a few notable exceptions) not based on scientific argument or otherwise empirical justification. Instead, most metaphysics is argued using a priori intuitions, where "that doesn't seem right" can be a legitimate reason to think something is false. But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality? After all, the things we do know about the world, the things we can and have verified, more often than not turn out to be not at all intuitive.

What reasons are there to think we can know the truths of metaphysics?

It is a branch of philosophy bro...
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 11:43:12 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 11:39:16 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
...or at least a huge chunk of it.

Metaphysics is (with a few notable exceptions) not based on scientific argument or otherwise empirical justification. Instead, most metaphysics is argued using a priori intuitions, where "that doesn't seem right" can be a legitimate reason to think something is false. But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality? After all, the things we do know about the world, the things we can and have verified, more often than not turn out to be not at all intuitive.

What reasons are there to think we can know the truths of metaphysics?

It is a branch of philosophy bro...

Of which I am perfectly aware. It's just that after reading a lot of it I came to share the the view of Ladyman, Ross and others.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 1:14:44 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality?

See: mathematics.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 1:37:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 1:14:44 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality?

See: mathematics.

Mathematical inquiry is not empirically justified?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
keithprosser
Posts: 2,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 2:18:51 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I'm not a fan of words link 'metaphysics'because I never know what they mean, or if I do know a meaning of it whether it is the same meaning someone else has!

Fr'instance, it seems to me that the OP is against rationalism rather than metaphysics. Rationalism is - as I understand it - the idea that knowledge is can be obtained just by thinking about things. It is opposed to 'empiricism' which is the idea that knowledge derives only from experience (e.g. experience gained in carefully controlled and specially designed scenarios called 'scientific experiments').
On the other hand being 'against metaphysics' sounds to me more or less being against just about the whole of philosophy!
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 3:09:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
...or at least a huge chunk of it.

Metaphysics is (with a few notable exceptions) not based on scientific argument or otherwise empirical justification. Instead, most metaphysics is argued using a priori intuitions, where "that doesn't seem right" can be a legitimate reason to think something is false. But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality? After all, the things we do know about the world, the things we can and have verified, more often than not turn out to be not at all intuitive.

What reasons are there to think we can know the truths of metaphysics?

Einstein made many discoveries, including general relativity, using thought experiments. I don't think it should be totally discounted. With that said, even well thought out suspicions should never be categorized as knowledge until there is empirical evidence.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 3:53:53 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 1:37:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:14:44 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality?

See: mathematics.

Mathematical inquiry is not empirically justified?

Not unless you consider textual justification empirical, in which case it is no more or less empirical than metaphysics, right? I don't see the difference there. It certainly doesn't make predictions or traditionally falsifiable claims, yet it is the paradigm of a hard science.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wuliheron
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 4:01:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
All of formal logic is based on metaphysics meaning its impossible to have a rational discussion without relying upon metaphysics. Of course, with the advent of quantum mechanics the idea that life has to always make sense has become demonstrably silly nonsense.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:09:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 2:18:51 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I'm not a fan of words link 'metaphysics'because I never know what they mean, or if I do know a meaning of it whether it is the same meaning someone else has!

Fr'instance, it seems to me that the OP is against rationalism rather than metaphysics.

Both, I suppose.

Rationalism is - as I understand it - the idea that knowledge is can be obtained just by thinking about things. It is opposed to 'empiricism' which is the idea that knowledge derives only from experience (e.g. experience gained in carefully controlled and specially designed scenarios called 'scientific experiments').
On the other hand being 'against metaphysics' sounds to me more or less being against just about the whole of philosophy!

Certainly not.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:24:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 3:09:57 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
...or at least a huge chunk of it.

Metaphysics is (with a few notable exceptions) not based on scientific argument or otherwise empirical justification. Instead, most metaphysics is argued using a priori intuitions, where "that doesn't seem right" can be a legitimate reason to think something is false. But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality? After all, the things we do know about the world, the things we can and have verified, more often than not turn out to be not at all intuitive.

What reasons are there to think we can know the truths of metaphysics?

Einstein made many discoveries, including general relativity, using thought experiments. I don't think it should be totally discounted. With that said, even well thought out suspicions should never be categorized as knowledge until there is empirical evidence.

Which is to say, Einstein was doing metaphysics. Which is perfectly fine, I never suggested that ALL of metaphysics was bunk. The important thing is, as you said, it was not accepted as knowledge until we tested it.

I knew that he got the idea of special relativity from thought experiments, but I thought the step to general relativity was motivated by different factors. What thought experiments did he use?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:33:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 3:53:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:37:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:14:44 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality?

See: mathematics.

Mathematical inquiry is not empirically justified?

Not unless you consider textual justification empirical, in which case it is no more or less empirical than metaphysics, right?

If by "textual" mean "proof", no I do not consider that empirical. It is justification inside the realm of mathematics, I suppose. But I wouldn't care about, say, calculus, regardless of what a mathematician might say, if it had no application. But because not only calculus, but a great deal of mathematics IS applicable in the natural sciences, some of it even long before it was used in the sciences, I consider mathematical inquiry empirically justified.

I don't see the difference there. It certainly doesn't make predictions or traditionally falsifiable claims, yet it is the paradigm of a hard science.

Mind you, I have never claimed that.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
keithprosser
Posts: 2,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 8:47:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:24:19 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I knew that he got the idea of special relativity from thought experiments, but I thought the step to general relativity was motivated by different factors. What thought experiments did he use?

Not quite a thought experiment, but a thought at least; while working on GR he had what he called `the happiest thought of my life':

"The gravitational field has only a relative existence... Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house - at least in his immediate surroundings - there exists no gravitational field."

http://physics.ucr.edu...
keithprosser
Posts: 2,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:05:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality?

Surely it's only by sitting down and thinking about things that such truths do become known. If all you do is collect data but never sit down to construct a theory that pulls it all together all you have is a notebook full of numbers, not knowledge of any truth, deep or otherwise.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:16:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 9:05:39 PM, keithprosser wrote:
But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality?

Surely it's only by sitting down and thinking about things that such truths do become known. If all you do is collect data but never sit down to construct a theory that pulls it all together all you have is a notebook full of numbers, not knowledge of any truth, deep or otherwise.

But that is not what I mean. When constructing a theory or model, you sit down to think about data. Most metaphysicians on the other hand sit down without data.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 9:59:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
It's quite simple really. We parse the structure of reality according to the requirement that reality conform to two-valued logic, as it's literally impossible to talk about any reality not meeting this requirement (you would be talking about two realities).
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 10:00:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 1:37:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:14:44 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality?

See: mathematics.

Mathematical inquiry is not empirically justified?

It wasn't derived or discovered or formulated empirically though....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 10:09:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 10:00:18 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:37:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:14:44 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality?

See: mathematics.

Mathematical inquiry is not empirically justified?

It wasn't derived or discovered or formulated empirically though....

That's not what I am getting at though. Perhaps I should have clarified that in the beginning.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
keithprosser
Posts: 2,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 10:15:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Then I'd guess the sort of thing you are against are all these sub-syllogistic 'proofs' (or 'disproofs') of god that hinge on the meaning of 'ultimate' or 'omnisyllabic' that crop up twice weekly on DDO!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 10:29:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Are you familiar with the problem of induction? It says that because scientific inferences are based on the assumption that nature is regular, the scientific method is necessarily circular. Attempting to scientifically investigate whether or not nature is uniform merely begs the question, as the relevance of any findings to those parts of reality not directly observed is open to doubt. Either this assumption is self-evidently justifiable, in which case knowledge of reality can be acquired by non-empirical means, or it's not, and the entire scientific enterprise and all of its conclusions are built atop a mere intuition.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 10:30:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:24:19 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/16/2016 3:09:57 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
...or at least a huge chunk of it.

Metaphysics is (with a few notable exceptions) not based on scientific argument or otherwise empirical justification. Instead, most metaphysics is argued using a priori intuitions, where "that doesn't seem right" can be a legitimate reason to think something is false. But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality? After all, the things we do know about the world, the things we can and have verified, more often than not turn out to be not at all intuitive.

What reasons are there to think we can know the truths of metaphysics?

Einstein made many discoveries, including general relativity, using thought experiments. I don't think it should be totally discounted. With that said, even well thought out suspicions should never be categorized as knowledge until there is empirical evidence.

Which is to say, Einstein was doing metaphysics. Which is perfectly fine, I never suggested that ALL of metaphysics was bunk. The important thing is, as you said, it was not accepted as knowledge until we tested it.

I knew that he got the idea of special relativity from thought experiments, but I thought the step to general relativity was motivated by different factors. What thought experiments did he use?

I watched a great documentary on the back story of how Einstein formulated general relativity but cant remember the name. One involved riding a train and how that correlated to relative speed of light/time and causality. One was riding an ever-accelerating elevator in space to mimic gravity and another one was what would he see if he was riding a light beam.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2016 10:31:35 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
...or at least a huge chunk of it.

Metaphysics is (with a few notable exceptions) not based on scientific argument or otherwise empirical justification. Instead, most metaphysics is argued using a priori intuitions, where "that doesn't seem right" can be a legitimate reason to think something is false.

It's stronger than that...It's not just an a priori intuition that there cannot be an all blue house with red stripes; it's a priori truth. We don't have to search the whole universe for empirical verification that there are no all blue houses with red stripes, we can come to know this truth just by thinking about it. You know for 100% fact that there is not-nothing. You don't have to look into empirical reality to verify this, the very fact that you are thinking and experiencing yourself (even in this hypothetical arm chair) would prove it.

But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality?

This type of thinking is necessary for truth. We need to sit in this hypothetical arm chair and think about whether X can also be not X. Just by thinking about it lets us know the fundamental truth that this is impossible. Therefore, whatever you empirically verify (such as the existence of a rock), we know that it cannot also be not a rock.

After all, the things we do know about the world, the things we can and have verified, more often than not turn out to be not at all intuitive.

It's stronger than just mere intuitions.


What reasons are there to think we can know the truths of metaphysics?

Without the laws of logic in place (which aren't physical, and are metaphysical) you cannot make claims about anything being true.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 2:34:04 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 8:33:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/16/2016 3:53:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:37:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:14:44 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality?

See: mathematics.

Mathematical inquiry is not empirically justified?

Not unless you consider textual justification empirical, in which case it is no more or less empirical than metaphysics, right?

If by "textual" mean "proof", no I do not consider that empirical. It is justification inside the realm of mathematics, I suppose. But I wouldn't care about, say, calculus, regardless of what a mathematician might say, if it had no application. But because not only calculus, but a great deal of mathematics IS applicable in the natural sciences, some of it even long before it was used in the sciences, I consider mathematical inquiry empirically justified.

I don't see the difference there. It certainly doesn't make predictions or traditionally falsifiable claims, yet it is the paradigm of a hard science.

Mind you, I have never claimed that.

Well, now I'm not sure what your standard for "justification" is.. I assumed you were talking about standards of truth, but it seems you are talking about whether or not you care about something. This latter is even less empirical, via the fact/value distinction.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 10:16:17 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 10:29:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Are you familiar with the problem of induction?
Yes.

It says that because scientific inferences are based on the assumption that nature is regular, the scientific method is necessarily circular.
That's not the problem of induction.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 10:17:40 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/16/2016 10:30:38 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:24:19 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/16/2016 3:09:57 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
...or at least a huge chunk of it.

Metaphysics is (with a few notable exceptions) not based on scientific argument or otherwise empirical justification. Instead, most metaphysics is argued using a priori intuitions, where "that doesn't seem right" can be a legitimate reason to think something is false. But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality? After all, the things we do know about the world, the things we can and have verified, more often than not turn out to be not at all intuitive.

What reasons are there to think we can know the truths of metaphysics?

Einstein made many discoveries, including general relativity, using thought experiments. I don't think it should be totally discounted. With that said, even well thought out suspicions should never be categorized as knowledge until there is empirical evidence.

Which is to say, Einstein was doing metaphysics. Which is perfectly fine, I never suggested that ALL of metaphysics was bunk. The important thing is, as you said, it was not accepted as knowledge until we tested it.

I knew that he got the idea of special relativity from thought experiments, but I thought the step to general relativity was motivated by different factors. What thought experiments did he use?

I watched a great documentary on the back story of how Einstein formulated general relativity but cant remember the name. One involved riding a train and how that correlated to relative speed of light/time and causality. One was riding an ever-accelerating elevator in space to mimic gravity and another one was what would he see if he was riding a light beam.

Pretty sure these are the ones leading to special relativity.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 10:39:09 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 2:34:04 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/16/2016 8:33:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/16/2016 3:53:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:37:01 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/16/2016 1:14:44 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/16/2016 11:33:39 AM, Fkkize wrote:
But why should we think sitting in an armchair, thinking really hard could lead us to some fundamental truth about reality?

See: mathematics.

Mathematical inquiry is not empirically justified?

Not unless you consider textual justification empirical, in which case it is no more or less empirical than metaphysics, right?

If by "textual" mean "proof", no I do not consider that empirical. It is justification inside the realm of mathematics, I suppose. But I wouldn't care about, say, calculus, regardless of what a mathematician might say, if it had no application. But because not only calculus, but a great deal of mathematics IS applicable in the natural sciences, some of it even long before it was used in the sciences, I consider mathematical inquiry empirically justified.

I don't see the difference there. It certainly doesn't make predictions or traditionally falsifiable claims, yet it is the paradigm of a hard science.

Mind you, I have never claimed that.

Well, now I'm not sure what your standard for "justification" is..

Just what I outlined in the beginning. The standard any metaphysical claim has to meet for me to take it seriously is that it is motivated by scientific argument or otherwise empirically justified.

I assumed you were talking about standards of truth, but it seems you are talking about whether or not you care about something.
Both, actually. In the OP, just the former. The argument is simply this: because we know, from empirical investigation, that nature is extremely counterintuitive, we have no reason the expect the intuitions metaphysicians utilize to be any good in guiding us to some fundamental truth. Unless they are empirically justified, but I would be very surprised to see the empirical justification of modal realism or any such metaphysical musing.

This latter is even less empirical, via the fact/value distinction.
Which I reject.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 11:42:26 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 10:39:09 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I assumed you were talking about standards of truth, but it seems you are talking about whether or not you care about something.
Both, actually. In the OP, just the former. The argument is simply this: because we know, from empirical investigation, that nature is extremely counterintuitive, we have no reason the expect the intuitions metaphysicians utilize to be any good in guiding us to some fundamental truth. Unless they are empirically justified, but I would be very surprised to see the empirical justification of modal realism or any such metaphysical musing.

Bracketing the issue of the whole "argument from Fkkize's lack of interest" fallacy, I don't think the assimilation of metaphysics and mathematics to intuition is as tenable as it may seem. If we take intuition in the sense that it is some data which is gained and known non-inferentially, then to dream of some cognitive domain consisting purely of intuitive knowledge would be the dream of the most thoroughgoing empiricist (eg, Hume). Metaphysics is, in just this sense, counter-intuitive knowledge in the most fundamental sense. Insofar as a science consisted purely of the registration of atomic elements of data, with no inferential interpretation applied, I doubt it could even get off the ground, let alone arrive at any interesting result. The progress of sciences runs parallel with their application of non-intuitive mathematical and metaphysical metrics to their selectively unearthed data. In absence of this, we are left with a barren concatenation of meaningless atoms.

In fact, I don't think the notion of "empirical justification" even makes sense without smuggling in some "metaphysical" baggage, since a justification is an inferential move which cannot be reduced to some set of smells, sounds or photons.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 11:58:25 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 11:42:26 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/17/2016 10:39:09 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I assumed you were talking about standards of truth, but it seems you are talking about whether or not you care about something.
Both, actually. In the OP, just the former. The argument is simply this: because we know, from empirical investigation, that nature is extremely counterintuitive, we have no reason the expect the intuitions metaphysicians utilize to be any good in guiding us to some fundamental truth. Unless they are empirically justified, but I would be very surprised to see the empirical justification of modal realism or any such metaphysical musing.

Bracketing the issue of the whole "argument from Fkkize's lack of interest" fallacy, I don't think the assimilation of metaphysics and mathematics to intuition is as tenable as it may seem. If we take intuition in the sense that it is some data which is gained and known non-inferentially, then to dream of some cognitive domain consisting purely of intuitive knowledge would be the dream of the most thoroughgoing empiricist (eg, Hume). Metaphysics is, in just this sense, counter-intuitive knowledge in the most fundamental sense. Insofar as a science consisted purely of the registration of atomic elements of data, with no inferential interpretation applied, I doubt it could even get off the ground, let alone arrive at any interesting result. The progress of sciences runs parallel with their application of non-intuitive mathematical and metaphysical metrics to their selectively unearthed data. In absence of this, we are left with a barren concatenation of meaningless atoms.

In fact, I don't think the notion of "empirical justification" even makes sense without smuggling in some "metaphysical" baggage, since a justification is an inferential move which cannot be reduced to some set of smells, sounds or photons.

Why do I feel like the tactic here will eventually end up being reducible to the endless expansion of the term "empirical" to take up anything you want it to encompass? I fear the oncoming equivocation of "empirical knowledge" with "whatever Fkkize cares about" - the rejection of the fact / value distinction for example. If you're talking about something as a field of knowledge including preferences and moral evaluations, then you're probably not talking about what 99% of the tradition has been talking about when using the term "empirical".
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:05:10 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 11:42:26 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/17/2016 10:39:09 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I assumed you were talking about standards of truth, but it seems you are talking about whether or not you care about something.
Both, actually. In the OP, just the former. The argument is simply this: because we know, from empirical investigation, that nature is extremely counterintuitive, we have no reason the expect the intuitions metaphysicians utilize to be any good in guiding us to some fundamental truth. Unless they are empirically justified, but I would be very surprised to see the empirical justification of modal realism or any such metaphysical musing.

Bracketing the issue of the whole "argument from Fkkize's lack of interest" fallacy,

This is the argument as I have stated it two times by now:
because we know, from empirical investigation, that nature is extremely counterintuitive, we have no reason the expect the intuitions metaphysicians utilize to be any good in guiding us to some fundamental truth. Unless they are empirically justified
Now I ask you to underline the part where my interests are relevant in any way.

I don't think the assimilation of metaphysics and mathematics to intuition is as tenable as it may seem. If we take intuition in the sense that it is some data which is gained and known non-inferentially, then to dream of some cognitive domain consisting purely of intuitive knowledge would be the dream of the most thoroughgoing empiricist (eg, Hume). Metaphysics is, in just this sense, counter-intuitive knowledge in the most fundamental sense.
What exactly are you addressing here?

Insofar as a science consisted purely of the registration of atomic elements of data, with no inferential interpretation applied, I doubt it could even get off the ground, let alone arrive at any interesting result.
Have I suggested that?

The progress of sciences runs parallel with their application of non-intuitive mathematical and metaphysical metrics to their selectively unearthed data. In absence of this, we are left with a barren concatenation of meaningless atoms.
I told you already that I do not advocate getting rid of metaphysics entirely. I even stated some of my criteria for serious metaphysics on your request.

In fact, I don't think the notion of "empirical justification" even makes sense without smuggling in some "metaphysical" baggage, since a justification is an inferential move which cannot be reduced to some set of smells, sounds or photons.
Which is no problem for my position.

Why do I feel like the tactic here will eventually end up being reducible to the endless expansion of the term "empirical" to take up anything you want it to encompass?
I have not expanded the term empirical justification in any way shape or form and I already explained to you in what sense mathematics is empirically justified.

I fear the oncoming equivocation of "empirical knowledge" with "whatever Fkkize cares about" - the rejection of the fact / value distinction for example. If you're talking about something as a field of knowledge including preferences and moral evaluations, then you're probably not talking about what 99% of the tradition has been talking about when using the term "empirical".

First of all, my rejection of that distinction has literally zero bearing on the OP. Secondly, whether or not I particularly like metaphysics is absolutely irrelevant to my argument.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:12:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 11:42:26 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/17/2016 10:39:09 AM, Fkkize wrote:

In fact, I don't think the notion of "empirical justification" even makes sense without smuggling in some "metaphysical" baggage, since a justification is an inferential move which cannot be reduced to some set of smells, sounds or photons.

This.