Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should metaphysics be taken seriously?

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 8:19:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Whenever I talk about science I almost always have someone bring up metaphysics. Why should I take metaphysics seriously? Metaphysics is just hypotheses that cannot be tested. If I want philosophies about science to be made I will let real scientists make them. How seriously should metaphysics be taken? How seriously should metaphysics not made be real scientists be taken?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 9:25:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 8:19:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Whenever I talk about science I almost always have someone bring up metaphysics. Why should I take metaphysics seriously? Metaphysics is just hypotheses that cannot be tested. If I want philosophies about science to be made I will let real scientists make them. How seriously should metaphysics be taken? How seriously should metaphysics not made be real scientists be taken?

You should take metaphysics seriously because it's assumptions guide science. Scientists have to make assumptions to make their theories work, like that the laws of nature are constant at all times and in all places. If you didn't assume that, how could you test it? By going back in time, by leaping into a black hole?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 10:14:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 9:25:27 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
You should take metaphysics seriously because it's assumptions guide science. Scientists have to make assumptions to make their theories work, like that the laws of nature are constant at all times and in all places. If you didn't assume that, how could you test it? By going back in time, by leaping into a black hole?

The assumptions of metaphysics guide science? How is "You're thinking in terms of physics. I agree there probably isn't a physical cause, but this doesn't mean there isn't an underlying metaphysical cause." a guide for science? Your statement, " the laws of nature are constant at all times and in all places"is an assumption made by scientists, which I can understand, but what about the metaphysics concepts that are not made by real scientists?

When it is something like "The laws of nature are the same everywhere and at every point in time" in order to help scientists with experiments/observations/etc. then why should we have a problem with it? Besides, without involving some unknown and unprovable force, why would they change? What would cause them to change?

When it is something like, "Physics doesn't exactly do the best job at explaining the metaphysical" or "there probably isn't a physical cause, but this doesn't mean there isn't an underlying metaphysical cause" or even " you can't use physical and empirical evidence in that sense to prove something metaphysical in nature, so a case must be made through indirect observation" then why should we listen to it? Metaphysics is a PHILOSOPHY. It might help science in certain ways, but it should NOT be used to make untestable hypotheses that do not help science in the slightest, which is what most people do.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 10:18:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 8:19:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Whenever I talk about science I almost always have someone bring up metaphysics. Why should I take metaphysics seriously? Metaphysics is just hypotheses that cannot be tested. If I want philosophies about science to be made I will let real scientists make them. How seriously should metaphysics be taken? How seriously should metaphysics not made be real scientists be taken?

In practice, no. Physics is a long way ahead of pure Philosophy. Our understanding of time, space, causality etc are depicted to become very obscure at the very small scales. And here more than anywhere else intuition, and classical notions/descriptions of the universe just do not apply.

It's becoming increasingly more transparent that much of the conjecture provided by metaphysics is at best irrelevant to the reality, "Not even wrong" is the expression.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 10:28:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 10:18:29 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
In practice, no. Physics is a long way ahead of pure Philosophy. Our understanding of time, space, causality etc are depicted to become very obscure at the very small scales. And here more than anywhere else intuition, and classical notions/descriptions of the universe just do not apply.

Yet, for some reason, people try and use metaphysics here as well... People need to learn that Science > metaphysics. They also need to learn that "something metaphysical in nature" is the same as saying, "I will BS because I don't like what science says." At least that is what it is like to people I know as well as myself.

It's becoming increasingly more transparent that much of the conjecture provided by metaphysics is at best irrelevant to the reality, "Not even wrong" is the expression.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. People trying to use metaphysics as a defense of their position are doing something EXTREMELY stupid (in my opinion). Metaphysics is almost dead because of how irrelevant it is becoming.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 11:03:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 8:19:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Whenever I talk about science I almost always have someone bring up metaphysics. Why should I take metaphysics seriously? Metaphysics is just hypotheses that cannot be tested. If I want philosophies about science to be made I will let real scientists make them. How seriously should metaphysics be taken? How seriously should metaphysics not made be real scientists be taken?

Are you a Logical Positivist?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 11:14:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 11:03:49 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/10/2014 8:19:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Whenever I talk about science I almost always have someone bring up metaphysics. Why should I take metaphysics seriously? Metaphysics is just hypotheses that cannot be tested. If I want philosophies about science to be made I will let real scientists make them. How seriously should metaphysics be taken? How seriously should metaphysics not made be real scientists be taken?

Are you a Logical Positivist?

I do not like to take on labels, so here is my view.

Where there is evidence I will look for a way to prove it false. If I find no satisfactory way to show that it is false I accept it as truth.

Where there is no evidence I try and find some. When I find no satisfactory evidence to show it as true I do not accept it as true.

Now, let's look at metaphysics. Where is the evidence for the claims of metaphysics? There is none. I find no evidence, people keep saying there is no physical evidence for something metaphysical in nature, so then what is most logical? Believe in something that has no evidence? Believe in something that has evidence? Which one has more weight when it comes to logic?

Science will always beat metaphysics. Metaphysics is dying. Why should I believe metaphysical claims, especially ones not made by real scientists? Can you give me a reason to believe them?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 4:53:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 8:19:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Whenever I talk about science I almost always have someone bring up metaphysics. Why should I take metaphysics seriously? Metaphysics is just hypotheses that cannot be tested. If I want philosophies about science to be made I will let real scientists make them. How seriously should metaphysics be taken? How seriously should metaphysics not made be real scientists be taken?

Scientists have repeatedly made fools of themselves trying to talk about philosophy. Just see Michio Kaku on free will, or Hawking (I'm a fan of both by the way). If you ask the top philosophers, they will tell you philosophy of science is central and important to science today.

Bringing metaphysics into scientific debate can be a mistake sometimes, but of course metaphysics as a whole should be taken seriously. Sidewalker asks if you're a logical positivist because your claims are all too typical among the ignorant philosophy bashing scientific empiricist types. You probably have no clue how much metaphysics has influenced and shaped science. Not to mention, metaphysics should be treated as separate from science and does not require the empirical evidence you seem to judge it by. The problems of metaphysics are legitimate problems and cannot be ignored just because metaphysics does not progress as much as science.

And lastly, your standard for empirical evidence is itself a metaphysical claim. As Kant pointed out back when metaphysics was already being harshly criticized, you can't escape metaphysics. Metaphysics is inevitable whether you like it or not.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 7:29:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 11:14:23 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/10/2014 11:03:49 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/10/2014 8:19:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Whenever I talk about science I almost always have someone bring up metaphysics. Why should I take metaphysics seriously? Metaphysics is just hypotheses that cannot be tested. If I want philosophies about science to be made I will let real scientists make them. How seriously should metaphysics be taken? How seriously should metaphysics not made be real scientists be taken?

Are you a Logical Positivist?

I do not like to take on labels, so here is my view.

Where there is evidence I will look for a way to prove it false. If I find no satisfactory way to show that it is false I accept it as truth.

Where there is no evidence I try and find some. When I find no satisfactory evidence to show it as true I do not accept it as true.

Now, let's look at metaphysics. Where is the evidence for the claims of metaphysics?

What exactly are the "claims of metaphysics"?

There is none. I find no evidence, people keep saying there is no physical evidence for something metaphysical in nature, so then what is most logical? Believe in something that has no evidence? Believe in something that has evidence? Which one has more weight when it comes to logic?

Science will always beat metaphysics. Metaphysics is dying. Why should I believe metaphysical claims, especially ones not made by real scientists? Can you give me a reason to believe them?

Believe who?

You seem to think there are two opposing doctrines, one of science and another of metaphysics, that"s nonsense. I"m beginning to wonder if you even know what metaphysics is, please tell us what you think metaphysics is.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I"m pretty sure it isn"t metaphysics.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 7:37:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Metaphysics is philosophy of science. I am fine with normal metaphysics that helps guide science, but then there are the idiots that like to separate them and say that there can be metaphysical causes that science cannot explain (such as why quantum fluctuations happen). What makes it worse is when they say that we cannot use evidence to prove something metaphysical in nature when talking about preposterous ideas that try and make religion and metaphysics the same thing. Metaphysics is slowly becoming filled more and more with religious idiots trying to prove their god with metaphysics. Metaphysics is dying, and, as a result, should be taken less and less seriously.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 7:43:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 7:37:36 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Metaphysics is philosophy of science. I am fine with normal metaphysics that helps guide science, but then there are the idiots that like to separate them and say that there can be metaphysical causes that science cannot explain (such as why quantum fluctuations happen). What makes it worse is when they say that we cannot use evidence to prove something metaphysical in nature when talking about preposterous ideas that try and make religion and metaphysics the same thing. Metaphysics is slowly becoming filled more and more with religious idiots trying to prove their god with metaphysics. Metaphysics is dying, and, as a result, should be taken less and less seriously.

Nope, that isn't what metaphysics is, not even close.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 7:46:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 7:43:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/10/2014 7:37:36 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Metaphysics is philosophy of science. I am fine with normal metaphysics that helps guide science, but then there are the idiots that like to separate them and say that there can be metaphysical causes that science cannot explain (such as why quantum fluctuations happen). What makes it worse is when they say that we cannot use evidence to prove something metaphysical in nature when talking about preposterous ideas that try and make religion and metaphysics the same thing. Metaphysics is slowly becoming filled more and more with religious idiots trying to prove their god with metaphysics. Metaphysics is dying, and, as a result, should be taken less and less seriously.

Nope, that isn't what metaphysics is, not even close.

I know that, but it slowly is being overtaken with that. So, if metaphysics is slowly becoming that (which it shouldn't be, but sadly is) then it becomes less and less reliable.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 8:17:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Metaphysics is pure BS; only religious fanatics like William Lane Craig and Sargon believe in that nonsense.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 6:13:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 8:17:11 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
Metaphysics is pure BS; only religious fanatics like William Lane Craig and Sargon believe in that nonsense.

What nonsense are you talking about? Please do tell, what do you think metaphysics is?

No one ever really escapes metaphysics, its derogators are just hiding it, obscuring it, or doing it badly....or sometime they just don't know what it is.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 2:12:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 7:37:36 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Metaphysics is philosophy of science.

Nope, they are two major separate branches of philosophy, though they sometimes branch together. It is, however, even less forgivable to disregard philosophy of science. Here's a quote from a top philosopher today (Tim Maudlin) addressing Hawking after he wrote that philosophy was dead and hasn't kept up with science, "Hawking is a brilliant man, but he's not an expert in what's going on in philosophy, evidently. Over the past thirty years the philosophy of physics has become seamlessly integrated with the foundations of physics work done by actual physicists, so the situation is actually the exact opposite of what he describes. I think he just doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean there's no reason why he should. Why should he spend a lot of time reading the philosophy of physics? I'm sure it's very difficult for him to do. But I think he's just . . . uninformed."

Some other quotes from the article:

"This question of accounting for what we call the "big bang state" -- the search for a physical explanation of it -- is probably the most important question within the philosophy of cosmology"

"It's not as if there's this big gap between physical inquiry and philosophical inquiry. They're both interested in the world on a very general scale, and people who work in the foundations of physics, that is, the group that works on the foundations of physics, is about equally divided between people who live in philosophy departments, people who live in physics departments, and people who live in mathematics departments. "

" There are different ways of thinking about the phenomena which we attribute to dark energy. Some ways of thinking about it say that what you're really doing is adjusting the laws of nature themselves. Some other ways of thinking about it suggest that you've discovered a component or constituent of nature that we need to understand better, and seek the source of. So, the question -- What is this thing fundamentally? -- is a philosophical question, and is a fundamental physical question, and will lead to interesting avenues of inquiry. "

"To the question as to why a physicist would want to hand time over to philosophers, the answer would be that physicists for almost a hundred years have been dissuaded from trying to think about fundamental questions. I think most physicists would quite rightly say "I don't have the tools to answer a question like 'what is time?' - I have the tools to solve a differential equation." The asking of fundamental physical questions is just not part of the training of a physicist anymore. "

He also talks about philosophy entering (or perhaps sometimes dominating) quantum mechanics, multiverse theory, time, probability and change. I would note that time, probability and change are themselves metaphysical questions that enter into philosophy of science.

Philosophy of science is definitely alive and well.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

I am fine with normal metaphysics that helps guide science,

So it's just some metaphysics you disregard? Also, it doesn't have to help or have anything to do with science.

but then there are the idiots that like to separate them and say that there can be metaphysical causes that science cannot explain (such as why quantum fluctuations happen). What makes it worse is when they say that we cannot use evidence to prove something metaphysical in nature when talking about preposterous ideas that try and make religion and metaphysics the same thing.

Every field has idiots. Why not look at the philosophers who really matter? I doubt you would be saying any of this if you only looked at philosophers with PhDs.

Metaphysics is slowly becoming filled more and more with religious idiots trying to prove their god with metaphysics.

It is?

Most of the time metaphysics has nothing to do with religion.

Metaphysics is dying, and, as a result, should be taken less and less seriously.

You have far from demonstrated this.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 2:16:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/11/2014 6:13:06 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/10/2014 8:17:11 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:

No one ever really escapes metaphysics, its derogators are just hiding it, obscuring it, or doing it badly....or sometime they just don't know what it is.

Exactly.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 2:39:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/11/2014 2:12:41 PM, phantom wrote:
At 3/10/2014 7:37:36 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Metaphysics is philosophy of science.

Nope, they are two major separate branches of philosophy, though they sometimes branch together. It is, however, even less forgivable to disregard philosophy of science. Here's a quote from a top philosopher today (Tim Maudlin) addressing Hawking after he wrote that philosophy was dead and hasn't kept up with science, "Hawking is a brilliant man, but he's not an expert in what's going on in philosophy, evidently. Over the past thirty years the philosophy of physics has become seamlessly integrated with the foundations of physics work done by actual physicists, so the situation is actually the exact opposite of what he describes. I think he just doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean there's no reason why he should. Why should he spend a lot of time reading the philosophy of physics? I'm sure it's very difficult for him to do. But I think he's just . . . uninformed."

Some other quotes from the article:

"This question of accounting for what we call the "big bang state" -- the search for a physical explanation of it -- is probably the most important question within the philosophy of cosmology"

"It's not as if there's this big gap between physical inquiry and philosophical inquiry. They're both interested in the world on a very general scale, and people who work in the foundations of physics, that is, the group that works on the foundations of physics, is about equally divided between people who live in philosophy departments, people who live in physics departments, and people who live in mathematics departments. "

" There are different ways of thinking about the phenomena which we attribute to dark energy. Some ways of thinking about it say that what you're really doing is adjusting the laws of nature themselves. Some other ways of thinking about it suggest that you've discovered a component or constituent of nature that we need to understand better, and seek the source of. So, the question -- What is this thing fundamentally? -- is a philosophical question, and is a fundamental physical question, and will lead to interesting avenues of inquiry. "

"To the question as to why a physicist would want to hand time over to philosophers, the answer would be that physicists for almost a hundred years have been dissuaded from trying to think about fundamental questions. I think most physicists would quite rightly say "I don't have the tools to answer a question like 'what is time?' - I have the tools to solve a differential equation." The asking of fundamental physical questions is just not part of the training of a physicist anymore. "

He also talks about philosophy entering (or perhaps sometimes dominating) quantum mechanics, multiverse theory, time, probability and change. I would note that time, probability and change are themselves metaphysical questions that enter into philosophy of science.

Philosophy of science is definitely alive and well.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

I am fine with normal metaphysics that helps guide science,

So it's just some metaphysics you disregard? Also, it doesn't have to help or have anything to do with science.

but then there are the idiots that like to separate them and say that there can be metaphysical causes that science cannot explain (such as why quantum fluctuations happen). What makes it worse is when they say that we cannot use evidence to prove something metaphysical in nature when talking about preposterous ideas that try and make religion and metaphysics the same thing.

Every field has idiots. Why not look at the philosophers who really matter? I doubt you would be saying any of this if you only looked at philosophers with PhDs.

Metaphysics is slowly becoming filled more and more with religious idiots trying to prove their god with metaphysics.

It is?

Most of the time metaphysics has nothing to do with religion.

Metaphysics is dying, and, as a result, should be taken less and less seriously.

You have far from demonstrated this.

Every heard of Immanuel Kant?

William Lane Craig is another religious fanatic that believes in metaphysics.

No legitimate scientist believes in metaphysics.

I can't tell who wrote the article you cited; but, it appears to be the opinion of one man.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 3:42:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/11/2014 2:39:31 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 3/11/2014 2:12:41 PM, phantom wrote:
At 3/10/2014 7:37:36 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Metaphysics is philosophy of science.

Nope, they are two major separate branches of philosophy, though they sometimes branch together. It is, however, even less forgivable to disregard philosophy of science. Here's a quote from a top philosopher today (Tim Maudlin) addressing Hawking after he wrote that philosophy was dead and hasn't kept up with science, "Hawking is a brilliant man, but he's not an expert in what's going on in philosophy, evidently. Over the past thirty years the philosophy of physics has become seamlessly integrated with the foundations of physics work done by actual physicists, so the situation is actually the exact opposite of what he describes. I think he just doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean there's no reason why he should. Why should he spend a lot of time reading the philosophy of physics? I'm sure it's very difficult for him to do. But I think he's just . . . uninformed."

Some other quotes from the article:

"This question of accounting for what we call the "big bang state" -- the search for a physical explanation of it -- is probably the most important question within the philosophy of cosmology"

"It's not as if there's this big gap between physical inquiry and philosophical inquiry. They're both interested in the world on a very general scale, and people who work in the foundations of physics, that is, the group that works on the foundations of physics, is about equally divided between people who live in philosophy departments, people who live in physics departments, and people who live in mathematics departments. "

" There are different ways of thinking about the phenomena which we attribute to dark energy. Some ways of thinking about it say that what you're really doing is adjusting the laws of nature themselves. Some other ways of thinking about it suggest that you've discovered a component or constituent of nature that we need to understand better, and seek the source of. So, the question -- What is this thing fundamentally? -- is a philosophical question, and is a fundamental physical question, and will lead to interesting avenues of inquiry. "

"To the question as to why a physicist would want to hand time over to philosophers, the answer would be that physicists for almost a hundred years have been dissuaded from trying to think about fundamental questions. I think most physicists would quite rightly say "I don't have the tools to answer a question like 'what is time?' - I have the tools to solve a differential equation." The asking of fundamental physical questions is just not part of the training of a physicist anymore. "

He also talks about philosophy entering (or perhaps sometimes dominating) quantum mechanics, multiverse theory, time, probability and change. I would note that time, probability and change are themselves metaphysical questions that enter into philosophy of science.

Philosophy of science is definitely alive and well.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

I am fine with normal metaphysics that helps guide science,

So it's just some metaphysics you disregard? Also, it doesn't have to help or have anything to do with science.

but then there are the idiots that like to separate them and say that there can be metaphysical causes that science cannot explain (such as why quantum fluctuations happen). What makes it worse is when they say that we cannot use evidence to prove something metaphysical in nature when talking about preposterous ideas that try and make religion and metaphysics the same thing.

Every field has idiots. Why not look at the philosophers who really matter? I doubt you would be saying any of this if you only looked at philosophers with PhDs.

Metaphysics is slowly becoming filled more and more with religious idiots trying to prove their god with metaphysics.

It is?

Most of the time metaphysics has nothing to do with religion.

Metaphysics is dying, and, as a result, should be taken less and less seriously.

You have far from demonstrated this.

Every heard of Immanuel Kant?

Yeah, he's the guy who wrote one of the greatest metaphysical treatise ever written. What about him?


William Lane Craig is another religious fanatic that believes in metaphysics.

OK.

No legitimate scientist believes in metaphysics.

Oh.


I can't tell who wrote the article you cited;

Tim Maudlin.

but, it appears to be the opinion of one man.

Indeed. He knows what's going on with science and philosophy much better than you or I and most people, so I don't see how the fact that he's just one man strikes you as a good refutation.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 3:45:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What does "believe in metaphysics" even mean?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 5:23:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@ SNP

Start by not taking your consciousness seriously. It is metaphysical, is experienced and yet manifestly not observable. In doubt ask a scientist if he experiences your thoughts by looking at an fMRI scan of your brain.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 6:57:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Now, who is not amused, at least mildly, by a theoretical physicist who "ex nihilo" declares independence from philosophy, in general, and from metaphysics, in particular.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 9:57:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/11/2014 5:23:46 PM, Iredia wrote:
@ SNP

Start by not taking your consciousness seriously. It is metaphysical, is experienced and yet manifestly not observable. In doubt ask a scientist if he experiences your thoughts by looking at an fMRI scan of your brain.

Actually we can (within some limits) determine what a person is thinking using an fMRI...

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

With what we currently know it is tenuous at best to call consciousness metaphysical.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 10:05:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Should metaphysics be taken seriously?

No, not really. They can make for interesting conversation, but they deal with things we really know nothing about...

Why is there something instead of nothing? Who cares, there is something.

Is there free will? We have a strong impression that there is... if ultimately there is no free will then I guess we wouldn't have the choice to act any different so what does it matter.

And on and on...
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 10:14:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 10:05:47 PM, Floid wrote:
Should metaphysics be taken seriously?

No, not really. They can make for interesting conversation, but they deal with things we really know nothing about...

I assume you are merely being polemical. Metaphysics, and the long, long history of its use - is an attempt to, well, understand the things we take for granted. You know, rivers, planets, quarks.

Why is there something instead of nothing? Who cares, there is something.

Again, ask a quark.

Is there free will? We have a strong impression that there is... if ultimately there is no free will then I guess we wouldn't have the choice to act any different so what does it matter.

And on and on...

Sounds like beginning of philosophic enquiry. Bravo.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 10:21:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 9:57:14 PM, Floid wrote:
At 3/11/2014 5:23:46 PM, Iredia wrote:
@ SNP

Start by not taking your consciousness seriously. It is metaphysical, is experienced and yet manifestly not observable. In doubt ask a scientist if he experiences your thoughts by looking at an fMRI scan of your brain.

Actually we can (within some limits) determine what a person is thinking using an fMRI...

Floid,

I read the article- awhile ago. To say the fMRI determines "what" a person is thinking is more than a stretch. It merely correlates certain regions of brain activity to very general domains of thinking.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

With what we currently know it is tenuous at best to call consciousness metaphysical.

You realize such an assertion is either a skeptical disclaimer, at best, and is a de facto non empirical philosophical assertion.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 4:04:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 6:57:14 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Now, who is not amused, at least mildly, by a theoretical physicist who "ex nihilo" declares independence from philosophy, in general, and from metaphysics, in particular.

Very amusing. Starting from how he snobs philosophers. It is to be taken in as it is though, physicists are simply doing to metaphysicists what they did to them in the past.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 6:53:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 10:14:18 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
I assume you are merely being polemical. Metaphysics, and the long, long history of its use - is an attempt to, well, understand the things we take for granted. You know, rivers, planets, quarks.

For much of history the attempt to understand rivers, planets, quarks (well they didn't even know about quarks) was metaphysical. In more modern times an alternative system known as physics took over and has explained a lot about those things. So the things you list are no longer under the domain of metaphysics.

Why is there something instead of nothing? Who cares, there is something.

Again, ask a quark.

Physics asks a quark. Metaphysics asks a more general question to which scientific inquiry can not be applied.

Is there free will? We have a strong impression that there is... if ultimately there is no free will then I guess we wouldn't have the choice to act any different so what does it matter.

And on and on...

Sounds like beginning of philosophic enquiry. Bravo.

Which like I said might make interesting conversation but is ultimately meaningless because even if you could arrive at an answer to those questions nothing would change.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 6:55:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 10:21:54 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
You realize such an assertion is either a skeptical disclaimer, at best, and is a de facto non empirical philosophical assertion.

I have no idea what any of that means.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 2:30:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 6:53:30 AM, Floid wrote:
.

For much of history the attempt to understand rivers, planets, quarks (well they didn't even know about quarks) was metaphysical. In more modern times an alternative system known as physics took over and has explained a lot about those things. So the things you list are no longer under the domain of metaphysics.

Well, unless you have examples I'd say metaphysicists thought deeper than bothering about rivers. They were trying to deduce the final cause, a true nature of things.


Physics asks a quark. Metaphysics asks a more general question to which scientific inquiry can not be applied.

No. At certain points they intersect, like space. Even the very question of being is something science is intruding into by delving into things like consciousness.


Which like I said might make interesting conversation but is ultimately meaningless because even if you could arrive at an answer to those questions nothing would change.

Your way of thinking would . . . for starters.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 2:53:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 8:19:13 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Whenever I talk about science I almost always have someone bring up metaphysics. Why should I take metaphysics seriously? Metaphysics is just hypotheses that cannot be tested. If I want philosophies about science to be made I will let real scientists make them. How seriously should metaphysics be taken? How seriously should metaphysics not made be real scientists be taken?

You cannot even do science without metaphysical assumptions.