This post of yours came after I responded to you? Is it a response to me. Am I a venomous religious snake in your opinion?

So if there is a thing beyond physics... what is it? Why is it "beyond" and not "outside", "under", "above" or "beside" physics? — god must be atheist

There are different ways metaphysics is defined, but to me it includes ontological assumptions. Like, there are natural laws, everything is physical. The idea of 'emergent property' could be seen as metaphysical. Certainly much of cosmology in physics is metaphysics discussion. QM raises a lot of metaphysics issues. And if this seems distant, it's not. QM based phenomena affect large organisms, like birds and plants and perhaps for things. IOW a bird will change course due to qm phenomena inside its visual system. And any attempt to be objective is necessarily working with metaphysics. What is, fundamentally, perception and how is ours skewing our metaphysics. Since we need to know this to know what are objective conclusions and ones biased by the fact that we are primate bodies/brained, time bound something or others? And the idea that there are natural laws is a kind of metaphysical viewpoint and there is quite a bit within science challenging it. Not that the patterns we've noticed aren't there, but they may be much more local and time bound then we assumed. They may not be laws but local, temporary patterns. Of course 'local' may means something huge from part of to the whole of our universe in a multiverse. And time bound may be in billions of years - though there are indications of changes in constants in much short time periods.

Paradigm shifts in physics would, it seems to me, involve metaphysics.


I wouldn't take that word 'beyond' too literally. metaphysics usually has to do with fundamental principles, not (necessarily) transcendent things. It could include the latter - depending on the metaphysics - but need not at all.

Wikipedia, is well, wikipedia, but even so it casts some light on this....

Metaphysics continues asking "why" where science leaves off. For example, any theory of fundamental physics is based on some set of axioms, which may postulate the existence of entities such as atoms, particles, forces, charges, mass, or fields. Stating such postulates is considered to be the "end" of a science theory. Metaphysics takes these postulates and explores what they mean as human concepts. For example, do all theories of physics require the existence of space and time,[12] objects, and properties? Or can they be expressed using only objects, or only properties? Do the objects have to retain their identity over time or can they change?[13] If they change, then are they still the same object? Can theories be reformulated by converting properties or predicates (such as "red") into entities (such as redness or redness fields) or processes ('there is some redding happening over there' appears in some human languages in place of the use of properties). Is the distinction between objects and properties fundamental to the physical world or to our perception of it?

Much recent work has been devoted to analyzing the role of metaphysics in scientific theorizing. Alexandre Koyré led this movement, declaring in his book Metaphysics and Measurement, "It is not by following experiment, but by outstripping experiment, that the scientific mind makes progress."[14] That metaphysical propositions can influence scientific theorizing is John Watkins' most lasting contribution to philosophy. Since 1957[15][16] "he showed the ways in which some un-testable and hence, according to Popperian ideas, non-empirical propositions can nevertheless be influential in the development of properly testable and hence scientific theories. These profound results in applied elementary logic...represented an important corrective to positivist teachings about the meaninglessness of metaphysics and of normative claims".[17] Imre Lakatos maintained that all scientific theories have a metaphysical "hard core" essential for the generation of hypotheses and theoretical assumptions.[18] Thus, according to Lakatos, "scientific changes are connected with vast cataclysmic metaphysical revolutions."[19]

An example from biology of Lakatos' thesis: David Hull has argued that changes in the ontological status of the species concept have been central in the development of biological thought from Aristotle through Cuvier, Lamarck, and Darwin. Darwin's ignorance of metaphysics made it more difficult for him to respond to his critics because he could not readily grasp the ways in which their underlying metaphysical views differed from his own.[20]

In physics, new metaphysical ideas have arisen in connection with quantum mechanics, where subatomic particles arguably do not have the same sort of individuality as the particulars with which philosophy has traditionally been concerned.[21] Also, adherence to a deterministic metaphysics in the face of the challenge posed by the quantum-mechanical uncertainty principle led physicists such as Albert Einstein to propose alternative theories that retained determinism.[22] A.N. Whitehead is famous for creating a process philosophy metaphysics inspired by electromagnetism and special relativity.[23]

In chemistry, Gilbert Newton Lewis addressed the nature of motion, arguing that an electron should not be said to move when it has none of the properties of motion.[24]

Katherine Hawley notes that the metaphysics even of a widely accepted scientific theory may be challenged if it can be argued that the metaphysical presuppositions of the theory make no contribution to its predictive success.[25] — Wikipedia

Since i am conscious right now i should know what consciousness is .. but i don't and nobody really knows. Also, If one is conscious that doesn't mean he will know necessarily that he is conscious, it requires self-consciousness for one to "see" himself. — Basko

'Knowing what consciousness is' could mean a number of things. I think one could say that experiencing is going on. How much information this adds I don't know, but I think the word 'experiencing' is a bit more phenomenological. Consciousness reads like a thing noun, an object. But I agree with you. What is experiencing without the contents of experiencing? is it the same as other consciousnesses, just that the contents are different? Or is every consciousness, to put in metaphorically, a different tone, even if the contents are the same?

Then, does consciousness = awareness ? — Basko

I don't think this is an issue of knowledge but rather one of definition. I think that is a good synonym. That's how I would want to define it. That or 'experiencing.' IOW I don't think one can dissect and analyze consciousness and decide that it is constituted by awareness, but rather that it's a possible definition.

This often also applies to anti-religious fanatics. — Wayfarer

I'd say it applies to even to moderates of both camps.

Physics Forums: Metaphysics
it's usually helpful to examine the roots of an unfamiliar term. Try a search on "metaphysical etymology" .

Meta= beyond,
so what's beyond physical ? Philosophy, i guess, and maybe the occult — Shushi

It's funny, really, that scientists don't realize that science has a metaphysics. In fact, several, not necessarily compatible ones.

In the US these days it has a lot to do with the near death of investigative reporting and taking news releases from the government (not inherently bad but run by neo-cons for the most part as you said) as news itself. — Noah Te Stroete

Exactly. No need for any conspiracy. The merging of huge media companies, the reduction of money for positions and investigation, the entertainment-izing of news, and dependency not just on government but also on private industry releases for news. And the background desperation for advertising is also problematic. It leads to conservative approaches to challenging the private sector especially if there is the threat of lawsuits which would almost always be the case if the reputation of the company was in question.

You give a very nuanced analysis. It SEEMS like it could be a good model of reality, — Noah Te Stroete

I appreciate that reaction since we tend to think differently about it. And I certainly don't claim to know. Those are my concerns.

Anyway, there is too much there to respond to each point — Noah Te Stroete

Of course. I realized after the enormous post that this could be a tactic, just swamp other people with too much to respond to. I wrote it mainly to work out where my own reactions were coming from, and to at least make it seem not completely irrational to someone with differing views.

I agree with what you say in the rest.

My guess is that in 2 years, we will still have a bit of a muddle knowing what is happening, what caused what and who is benefiting and losing and what this means about the long run.

But we'll see.

There are a lot of Buddhisms, they believe all sorts of things.

They would need to appeal via prayer to the enormous plumber, whom they could see through their tiny tiny telescopes, to put some soap on their drop universe so that the surface tension is broken and they can slip out.

"Science will answer all our questions and solve all our problems" or "any question that is not answerable by science is not a coherent question" (this latter would probably count more as positivism, but I think it is also an expression of a kind of scientism). — Janus

These two scientism utterances are hypocritical, since they are conclusions arrived at not via science. I think this is a common feature of scientism. It is hypocritical.

Doesn’t it at all concern you that Brexit is what Putin wants? — Noah Te Stroete

It is something to notice, sure.

I suppose Putin and the common people of the UK could have interests in common by accident and for different reasons — Noah Te Stroete

Absolutely.

You say the EU would be another step removed from the people they are supposed to represent, so that would be bad for the common folk. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, if that was the only factor, it would be a bad move to stay in the EU. It is however a complicated situation, extremely. I do think that the closer the electorate is to the representatives, the better the chances they will actually be represented, other factors being equal. I also think that centralized distant governments are more easily control by industry and potentially also military/intelligence players.

Putin doesn’t want a strong and united Europe for a couple of reasons, probably because they are his historical enemies, but also maybe because they won’t then need Russia for trade as much? — Noah Te Stroete

There's Nato and there's the EU, both forms of European unification, the former tying it in with the US. I am sure Putin for purely practical reasons - perhaps some negative, some neutral, some simply taking care of his country's and his own interest - would see benefits in being able to negotiate with, engage in dimplomacy with and barter with a diverse group instead of a block. I would guess he is also concerned about US hawks and how they want to use Europe.

That sounds like a bit of a stretch to me that the corporate media is solely trying to line its pockets by hoodwinking the commoners who have a common goal as Putin?? — Noah Te Stroete

I haven't asserted that, nor do I think it. That's another extremely complicated set of causes and motives. I don't however think that most of the conservative and many of the labor players want EU because of farmers and working class people. They have steadily increased the gap between the rich and the poor through their polices going back to Thatcher. IOW all their talk about caring about migrants and caring about the state of the working class sounds like BS to me. They are pro EU for other reasons. Yes, some of these might trickle down to benefit those classes, but that's not their motivation. Does this mean that Brexit is right? No, but the fog of BS is huge and I understand why the working classes did not see the positions for EU as for them.

Perhaps the corporate media isn’t all evil? — Noah Te Stroete

I think very little of it is evil. Like sitting around rubbing their hands with glee evil movie villain. I am sure that when they repeat the views the neo cons want them to have, the neo cons, as one example, have found a way to make it seem obvious (whatever the particular issue is) and those reporters, editors and owners to a great degree think they have the right editorial opinions, have investigated the right things, have taken facts to support their articles and so on. I would think very, very few journalists and editors thought the Bush Admin was making shit up about Hussein's WOMD to get both the US and Britain into Iraq. I am sure that a number deep down didn't really care, but even these still bought the ideas because it was comfy for them. There are so many reasons why even good people can end up supporting bad ideas, not doing due diligence, decided not to air their doubts. This is especially true when one would be damned as crazy, evil, hating your country, moronic for doing so.

Fox News is pro-Trump while MSNBC is anti-Trump — Noah Te Stroete

Fox News was anti-trump before he was elected. I see you're right about where they are now. Sure, there have always been differing views, though anyone outside of the democrats and republican views, in the US will be marginalized and pathologized. No journalist could point out that the US is an oligharcy. No candidate who has not kissed Wall St. ass has come in the White house in, what 40 years. Obama made noises, but the moment he got in he put people in his cabinet who would toe the Wall st. line. And at the best time to push back in recent history on Wall St. Clinton, a theoretical liberal slashed social services, allowed a bill that radically increased the number of poor and black people brought up on drug charges and freed Wall st and banks in precisely the ways that led to the 2008 collapse. Fox news also needs to compete with other networks that are mainly staffed with liberals. If all stations are attacking trump, Fox news, which is branded as different, loses a lot of that difference. Further Trump - who I will repeat, I do not like at all - hasn't really done many of the things he promises. He is not or was not allowed to be the candidate that even freaked out the Republicans. He did end up intervening in Syria, despite long saying he would not play that game. He is still not really getting a wall - which by the way Clinton and Obama added to. Many his policies have been blocked by congress and the courts. He sure has made a lot of noise and said a lot of things that conservatives have bitten their tongues over. Fox news knows who hates him most. They have a brand and target audience to work with.

Where is the conspiracy there? — Noah Te Stroete

I may have missed it but I didn't say there was a conspiracy. Not in any gett he main players together have a sit down and decide. People are actually much more easily led by people with power than to need their being in on whatever changes those in power want to make.

But let's go back to Putin. The US has entered militarily, well, I don't know how many nations in the years since 9/11, and left behind it a wake of not quite functioning countries. It has been screaming about Iran and Syria and just as the neo-cons announced in the years prior to 9/11, it has wanted to get into these two countries, along with the others it already has. Putin is a typical strong man dictator type. He's no one I want to be ruling my country. That said, I think he has good reason to be concerned about what the US is planning and just because the US is the cavalry of democracy and goodness, butrut because they are the most actively violence destabilizing country these days and they definitely have long term eyes on Russia and China. Of course Putin would like to see diversity in the Allies - in the Allies of the US. The better the chance that whatever polices and military movies, and destabilization moves are made using the US by the neocons, might meet criticism by US allies. Of course Britain, via Blair, a neocon in labor clothing, hopped right into Iraq. Putin would be a fool to think he has any guarantees of independent thought. But the more potentially separate voices and actors, the better off Russia is. That's just practical. Does this mean he cares about British workers? nah? Does it mean that it might be of benefit to both? Sure. And it certainly might be a benifit to poor young men in the US who will be the main cannon fodder, as they have been since ww2, the next time the US puts people on the ground somewhere at the behest of Wall St. and the Oil industry.

In meteorology, for example, they cannot determine what is going to happen in a specific location, only a general trend over a generally large area. They can only do this because the science ignores individuality, and so ignores most of reality. Does that make sense? — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, I get that. But then science would also say what clouds are made of, how the water gets up there and all sorts of things that help us understand individuals. What are human bones made of? What are the smallest parts of water made of? Why am I myopic? HOw can that bug walk on water? I am not contradicting what you said, perhaps, but it is not like there is only information about general categories and none about individuals in science. Much of science will say what all individuals in a group are like, for example.

When I read or discuss a bit of philosophy I become frustrated with the way people quote a philosopher as if the philosopher has the answer. — Denovo Meme

That's sounds like a battle of appeals to authority. IOW philosophy has a critique of that kind of communication - we could call this critique or fallacy something similar to a natural law - which can aid one in dealing with such things in scientific discussions, philosophy, politics, wherever.

There is never a shred of data, worldly evidence of universality, or even revolutionary insight. — Denovo Meme

There are certainly philosophical works that include data. And philsophical discussions online will sometimes include data. Other types of discussions in philosophy can't use data.

Science has fundamental laws and principles by which we obtain a 0.05 answer. — Denovo Meme

I assume that was an example that number. Science is in fact a product of philosophical thinking, at least at many points in its history there have been philosophical discussions, by scientists, by generalists, by philosophers, about epistemology. And this has aided (and perhaps sometimes blocked) scientific research and strategies. If you are having a discussion over free will vs. determinism, I am not sure where a numerical value can come in. If you are analysing the language use in a position, again, I don't see where number values come in. It's a bit like saying that your literary studies didn't deal much with chemicals. These are different kinds of truths being sought after, often at a more abstract level then science is aiming for in specific research.

Such as, how do you model individual clouds or people. Generalities are easy because it ignores most of reality. — Noah Te Stroete

Could you expand on that, I didn't get it.

On the other hand, science doesn't really have any laws either. A law describes how something has to act or should act. Scientific laws only describe how the world generally tends to act under certain circumstances. They describe. They don't cause or explain. — T Clark

And there is growing evidence that they may be local and time bound - iow not really laws, but patterns.

I also agree that only a person who has his basic needs met has enough time to think about this possible futility of existence, yet perhaps there are some who are bugged by it even when they have no roof above their heads (fortunately not my case though). — DanielPhil

I am sure that many people without a roof over their heads get frustrated by the futility. And sometimes surely wonder if there is any meaning to life or their lives. But this comes out of their frustration given how much their lives and the quality of them matter to them. And most of them would fight tooth and nail to keep that life going. We can all go through phases where it seems not to matter and the emotions that go with that phrase. But to start asserting that life doesn't matter is different from going through those kinds of states. It is attempting to draw a conclusion, as if logically, rather then faced with what can be very harsh, going through a state of despair.

Bear in mind, it is possible to have true beliefs without evidence, so spiritual beliefs can still be true, they just don't rise to the level of knowledge by traditional epistemic standards. Hence the centrality of "faith" in many religions. — Pantagruel

Actually a number of religions are quite empirical. You'll find this in many branches of Hinduism. You have stages and steps in experience, for example, with meditiation, and these can even be predicted by the experts, down to order of experiences and stages and tailor fitting predictions for individuals. Now an atheist or other skeptic will say that the conclusoins are still false, those that have to do with the external world. Though how they know this is an issue, but also the main point here is that there is a huge empirical aspect to spiritual beliefs, this is often systematized based on thousands of years of experience and that it works for people. IOW promised goals can be achieved by following the practices of, and the posited entities of, certain religions. In the West people are often used to prioritizing faith, so debates between believers get skewed to faith vs. knowledge. But this is not the only type of religion, and even Western theists will base their beliefs, often in part or in the main one what they experience as participants and how it is working for them. Now skeptics will say, as I mentioned about, that even if it is 'working' and there are predictable stages and experiences, this is not knowledge. But that is based on their sense that what is posited, say God, is not real. But actually knowledge has to do with experience and working, certain in instrumental approaches to knowledge. And further I have never met anyone who does not consider conclusions reached in similar ways knowledge. Not similar as in similar to meditation or chanting, but similar in the sense of built up over time in predictable stages of experience and finding that the beliefs work.

Well said, I have been surprised for years now how polarised the US electorate is. While I thought politics was more fluid in the UK. Now we are equally, if not more so, polarised and it is quite a surprise. I realise that the split had been developing beneath the surface for years, but I thought the EU scepticism was in a minority amongst the hard right and a little amongst the hard left. What surprised many was a large group of traditionally working class labour voters in the north who voted leave and a strong leave vote in agricultural areas ( who will suffer most from leaving).

Unfortunately this has resulted in the hard right seizing power, so we're in for a rollercoaster ride now. — Punshhh

I'm a benficiary of the EU, in that it let me move fast to a third country from the US. I have to say I have long term concerns about it. I don't feel well read enough to demonstrate the validity of my fears. But I do think that larger entities, in the long run, are more subject to control by the private sector. And the governments are less connected to the people on the street. I feel this is the case with the USA, which can be seen as having similarities to the EU in that there is semi-independent smaller parts with their own laws,then there are federal laws that overlap, supercede or cover other areas.

I think the issue often gets couched as nationalistic or not. But in practical terms we are dealing with a small nation or a batch of small nations and the formation of a large nation. The latter nation will have specific values and goals. So, it is not as if wanting the EU is simply wanting a neutral non-nation thing.

I do get the ideas here. The huge wars. The increasing the economic power of members through group negotiation and more. I do get the idea of being a more unified center for certain values and something to offset the massive power and influence of the US and potentially a USSR again and China.

I just have a feeling that the EU will end up being a corporate entity. This doesn't mean smaller nations are immune to this. Nor do I think the current powers and policies of the EU make this easy for the corporations to manage, yet. But I think that is why they - the corpoations in general - are so, so pro EU. Any centralization of power, allows centralization of influence and control. And degrees of separation between representatives and the represented allow more sweeping disconnected changes.

None of my concerns are easy to demosntrate in terms of probability. I just note that they are not even considered. I remember when the State I lived in began to make noises about seceding - and not for racist or other reasons. Jus the sense, held by some, that it could represent the people's own needs better. This was treated as a kind of sin/sign of retardation. It would necessarily economically collapse. I doubt it. I think people in Canada and other parts of the US would find it fascinating there was a little nation there, an ally of course, and Tourism would have increased radically. Not that I could prove this, but i was skeptical about all the doomsayers - this would not have been the same as Brexit, I do not conflate the two. I think smaller governments can be more fair since they are known to their neighbors. More interconnected. It was also treated as not sharing values such as democracy. IOW the idea fell under so many guns that were extremely certain. Me, I think in the long run it would be better to evolve into smaller countries. I don't think we can think at the levels of megacountries.

Is now the right time? I don't know.

Were the motives of the Brexiters like mine? Not on the surface.

But remember people often justify their beliefs and reaction and emotions after the fact.

I don't think the working class is wrong that the elites don't really give a shit about them. That there is something off going on at a systematic level and that the EU in the long run likely will not have their interests at heart and will be, perhaps, even harder to influence.

Now my reactions are coming in part from the fact that the media where I am paints anyone wanting Brexit as per se stupid and evil. That message gets put through over and over. Nothing grey in it. No possible points of concern about the EU. Nothing. It is black and white, good versus evil, intelligence versus the fucking stupid manipulated proletariat.

That does not play well with me.

I remember when the country I now live in was going to swithc to the EURO. The government lost the referendum and immediately started to try to set up another one, democracy be damned. It was a drop in the bucket of controversy compared to Brexit, but the same patterns. TElling people they were stupidd and stuck in the past. Dire warnings about catastrophy predictions - in fact, it protected the country several times not having the Euro.

I distrust the powers that be have the same ideals as the people who voted against Brexit. IOW I am not sure that the very good values that most pro-EU brits have are actually what the goals of the designers and players involved in the EU have. I can't demonstrate this. I am not sure where the EU will go. But finding myself bombarded with the pro EU in all media with not the slightest possible future problem or disadvantage or concern, I find myself saying things like I did above.

And heck, I don't think demonizing the opposition is helping at all as a strategy. People just dig in their heels more. Adn you get the populist political groups gaining ground.

Oh, I see, thanks for clarifying. Yes, I agree. The problem from where I'm standing is that the majority of the electorate who voted and will vote if there is another referendum don't ever find out what the real issues are, what reality will be like. All they hear is the popularised slogans on each side. — Punshhh

I'm primarily a Yank (though also a Brit) so the above sounds to me like, well, politics. I mean, when is it not so. The difference is a huge decision made via direct democracy rather then representational. I can think of other decisions made via representational democracy, in Britain and the US, where similar descriptions fit. In fact it is the norm. Which is not to say one should not complain about it, but to my eyes and ears it is the rule and not a recent phenomenon.

I am beginning to have doubts about their impartiality, or at least their editorial decisions. They appear to be falling for the anti Corbyn, anti labour rhetoric and giving to much credence to the hard right dogma. While relentlessly attempting to analyse the minutiae of the internal politics of the Labour Party and continuously failing to call out the Tory bluster about the political psycho drama and undemocratic power struggles within the Tory party and with their corporate supporters. — Punshhh

My guess is if there was a hard right candidate, they would be biased against him. I think there is a kind of radical center and anything that does not follow that line has any potential fault highlighted and often things that even that radical center would agree with glossed over, put in the footnotes so to speak. I could see this with Trump - who I do not like, just so that's clear, but who did actually have some good ideas, but these were treated as insanity or absolutely ignored, because he was not to be President. And whatever sympathy I might have with that particular goal, that ain't journalism. And that pattern takes place when you are dealing with much more interesting individuals and groups. They also get marginalized and mistreated by much of the media.

In fact this pattern, a kind of radically rejecting things not well understood, or that seem threatening, or might give someone or something a positive light and they 'should' not have it, the my paradigm is right and anything not fitting that paradigm must be treated like the immune system treats any intruder I find endemic and pernicious. My frustration with it online is ready to undermine all participation.

People just won't play fair when it comes to anything they have ego/paradigmatic stake in, which now seems to be everything. Politics, ontology, interpersonal relations, psychology. I find few people willing to concede anything, willing to say things like 'nice point, I still disagree, but I need to come back when I am sure why I disagree' or even willing to actually respond to specific points. There are jihads in the strangest places, including people advocating science.

I am surprised I am still surprised by this, given how this has frustrated me and no doubt many others, including many of those who I think do this, but, well, there are always parts of oneself that are slow to learn.

(and I am sure I have engaged in this type of thing myself.)

And you needn't respond to (or even read, too late) my rant. It's off topic. It just occurred to me and I found a way to articulate it which was, heh, beneficial to me.

I don't really understand what you're saying. The Hard Brexiters (our government), say that we have a great future, one in which we are set free of the shackles of over regulation and protectionism. They point out that we will be free to make our own trade deals ( ye haa! ) — Punshhh

I was saying that those on either side who argue that it is the end of things if what they want does not happen are not helping the debate or the discussions. I think they don't know this will be the case, in either the short or the long term. They are speculating,and wildly, but presenting it is as if it is a clear and obvious rational conclusion.

OH, thank God, I can go to sleep now.

A psychologically stable individual, his experience through good fortune circumscribed by a benign situation, necessarily thereby suspecting nothing outwith his resultant bliss. — Robert Lockhart

And yet could be a nihilist, having the kind of luxury to put their morality and sense of meaning on a shelf, having less or little struggle and less need for the motivations inherent in non-nihilist belief systems.

A psychologically unstable individual, his experience through misfortune circumscribed by a malign situation, likewise necessarily thereby suspecting nothing outwith his resultant misery. — Robert Lockhart

who might also be a nihilist, but then might suprise us (or not) and be deeply embedded in various objective value, transcendent or other meaning paradigmns.

So then we get to the observer....

Such nihilism would in principle be an example of the degree of possible inequity innate to a situation descended solely from a logical reality - would it not? - its manifestation therefore perhaps being symptomatic of the nature of our situation. — Robert Lockhart

Who might be a nihilist or become one, seeing the radically different experiences as contingent, since he or she cannot see any rhyme or reason to the fates of these two, if they are fates, as if this view is somehow neutral. Everyone has a tendency to see their position as the more default position and other people as having heavy onuses.

Or the observer might no commit to nihilism, but leave the door open for things going on behind the scenes or somehow else note a pattern or the existence of patterns.

We still in abeyance.

Again - matter, meaning, reason, significance, importance, insignificance, irrelevance, importance - all these are human terms for human situations. Of course they don't apply situations where no human or other sentient being is involved. — T Clark

Well, that's every situation I or anyone else will every encounter. So everything that I will ever experience or encounter or go through will matter, at the very least to me. The situations that don't matter to me and anyone else, well, they don't matter.

Earth, our son, our solar system, the Milky Way, other galaxies, the universe - all are just as insignificant as we are. — T Clark

Or significant. Again it depends, as you seem to be saying, to some sentient beings. The only way we can say the sun, earth, etc., is insignificant is if we are referring to the attitude of, say, a civilization many galaxies away. It's all insignificant to them, so far, anyway.

But to say something is insignificant with reference to a sentient being seems to me to be confused. My house is insignifican to a rock in the grand canyon. I think that is nonsense and implies things that are not the case. If the earth is insignificant, who is it insignicant to?

I could see saying that things are not longer significant or no longer matter if there is no one there who finds them significant or that they matter.

We don't matter as universe will continue to exist whether we exist or not — Sheik Yerbouti

WE don't matter to whom. The verb 'matter' in this sense, has to do with someone or some entity that is capable of caring about or being interested in the life of us (or whatever it is that matters to them). There are obviously people to whom nearly all of us matter.

There are definitely people who treat science as a religion. I'm not sure if there's actually anyone with the view you describe in quotation marks above. — Terrapin Station

A couple of common things I could put under the banner of scientism would be:
treats the results of scientific research as proofs and treats scientific models as proven. More of less in the mathematical sense, that is, not every potentially revisable. (I think you said this in other words)
2) Considers current science complete. Very rarely will someone assert this, unless it is to couch it as, well, there are details to work out but no more fundamental surprises. However it seems implicit in how they react to beliefs held outside the scientific community and also within the scientific community that have not gained consensus. If it isn't consensus scientific belief, it is wrong.
3) There seems to often be a conflation of insufficient evidence with no evidence.
4) They often think it is easy to rule things out by reference to current models. Of course science uses similar types of deduction, and this is one of the ways they sift through potential research, but it isn't particularly scientific to rule things out in this way. It certainly isn't empirical research, for example.

I remember acknowledging that proof is often difficult to achieve in practice. But the problem, I think, is not positives or negatives but "proof". — Pattern-chaser

Dats what I saying, man.

"Proof" is easier, as its definition holds it close to its absolute meaning: an unambiguous demonstration of the correctness of something. And this is very difficult to achieve, it seems to me. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Yes.

Why should an individual matter when there are so many different people in this world? — DanielPhil

Why shouldn't an individual matter when there are so many people in the world?
Then also, matter to whom?

I think if you add in, which one must, whom people are to matter to, you will have your answer.

Why does your question matter when there are so many questions in the world?

See, it's kidn of a confusion. You question doesn't matter to most people - in part because they simply do think that individuals they care about and perhaps others in general matter. But your question matters to you. Perhaps it matter to others.

I agree, but think this becomes clearer once you put scientism inside a person in a specific life. That person will always need to assume things are true, even to use their scientific knowledge or to obtain their scientific knowledge, that they did not get through science. And they will use this knowledge gained in other ways to directly affect the lives of people around them. IOW they trust this knowledge enough to potentially adversely affect the lives of people, including those they care about. A person in situ must make a number of assumptions related first to their own personal memory and perception. They cannot begin each day making sure that their memories of epistemological issues and specific bits of knoweldge they have are true by redoing empirical research. The can consider their memory to a great extent accurate, in both general and specific ways. They will also use intuition about the conclusions of others - could something like this be wrong and yet have made it part peer review, for example. They are always making real world decisions about what they consider real and we should consider real that are not based on scientific processes FOR THEM. And then, yes, then how do they test whether other knowledge is possible.

There is something specific about negatives: it is impractical (as in 'impossible in practice') to prove them. That some positives also show this property does not affect the truth of this, does it? — Pattern-chaser

I've asked you for postives that don't show this property. You acknowledged that all of science does not show this property. And scientific conclusions are generally framed in the positive. Give me the bones, man.

The specific thing about negatives is that they are framed in such a way that proof becomes impossible because of the way they're framed. This only applies to some positives, I think? — Pattern-chaser

Well, let's find out together.

No, I stated it without proof, as proof is impossible. Where there can be no proof, we can only trade (what we think are) possibilities, n'est ce pas? :wink: — Pattern-chaser

So, then, like with positive assertions, we can argue in terms of probability. Or we are simply reduced in all things to trading assertions. So, your argument in favor of your assertion that one cannot prove a negative was an attempt to say it was unlikely, for reasons X and Y. That's our position in terms of postive assertions also.

We could begin by telling the absolute truth, as we understand it, and see where we can go from there?

We have never seen or heard of a swan with fur, so we believe there are no furry swans.

There, a belief and its justification, simply presented. No claims to proof. :up: — Pattern-chaser

Sure, agreed, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the difference between analytic and synthetic statements is not so cut and dried.

And the general point is that both positive and negative statements cannot be proved. So to keep saying negative statements cannot be proved implies something specific about negative statements. And note, generally the idea is used as a critique of using absence of counterevidence as supporting evidence that something exists. Certainly many negative assertions seem as easy to show they are probable as positive statements. Your father is not dead. You father is alive. Negative statements are not a specific case. And yes, I haven't proven that negative assertion.

Neither of us have proven our negative assertions about negative assertions.

Yes they do. Core claims in Christianity: God exists, there's an afterlife, Jesus is the son of God, The Holy Spirit of Jesus rose from the grave. — S

That there is a God is not incompatible with science. It is just not supported. SAme with the afterlife. There are several interpretations of Jesus being the son of God.

Science has a method. Application of that method does not result in the above. — S

Which is what is called 'does not support'.

So you can't both adhere to the scientific method, which would result in scepticism at best, and at the same time hold beliefs which fly in the face of that scepticism.

How can anyone be so blind to the obvious incompatibility here? — S

And there you go again with the attitude.

Here's what I notice: you are supposedly representing rationality and science. But in the discussion me so far, you do not respond to points I made, most importantly the one's I made related to the difference between incompatibility and 'not support by' and what your position would mean in relation to changes inside the history of science. IOW you ignored the main point of my post. And then you also go implicity ad hom.

Repeating your position is not responding in a philosophical discussion.

And yet you are supposedly the rational one with the scientific attitude.

Your responses have been rude and hypocritical.

Now I could go on an explain my points a third time - since I posted the same points earlier in the thread and you did not respond - yes, this happens, but now you have specifically ignored them.

But I'll ignore you from here on out. There are perfectly rational atheists and agnostics to have such discussions with. And it is certainly not that they suddenly give up in the face of my arguments, in fact they read them and respond to them and manage not to go ad hom.

IOW they do not smugly waste my time. And yes, I have now gone ad hom also.

And I mean ad hom in the sense of 'to the man' and not the formal fallacy. This last was actually an appeal to incredulity on your part.

Well, if we take "prove" to be more or less absolute in its meaning, then I suspect there's nothing we can prove. And if we dilute its meaning to avoid this problem, what we are left with is 'proof' that is sort of probable or likely, rather than, er, proof. — Pattern-chaser

Well, if we are dealing with probablities, then we can start doing this with negatives.

and then we need to deal with which qualities of swans are part of the definition of swans. Can I say there are no swans without fur instead of feathers? Are there intermediate examples that are analytic? Is black one of them?

Impossible, in practice (which is all that — Pattern-chaser

Which is a negative claim and thus unprovable. yet, you seemed to intend to prove it.

OK, so to prove that "no swan is black", you would need to examine all currently-living swans. No matter where they're hiding. Impossible, in practice (which is all that matters). It can't be done, in the real world we live in. — Pattern-chaser

I already acknowledged that. And it's exactly the same as all swans are white, which you acknowledged. So what's with the negative. If you want to argue 'some swans are white is provable' then you are going against what you agreed with earlier that all of science is inductive and thus open to revision. Perhaps it will turn out they are not swans or it is not white, but soem other color our eyes register as white or _______________some unknown thing that means that they really weren't white that we can't think of now.

...yes, it does. But you still can't prove a negative. Just like you can't prove some positives. — Pattern-chaser

Well, let's find a positive we can't state as a negative to see if it makes sense to make it seem like some positive we can prove. I mean, I thought we agreed that all of science was revisionable and thus not proven. So what are these positives that we can prove?

The proof here refers to the definition of the term "bachelor", which is "unmarried male". Thus it is disproved by definition, which is a somewhat trivial case, don't you think? :razz: — Pattern-chaser

I called it analytical (as opposed to synthetic). Actually I think there are non-trivial examples of this, though it has to be more complex definitions.

So then you should agree with the point that I was making, namely that there are at least some key beliefs which must be taken literally — S

for it to be a theism, yes. I wouldn't stop someone in argument or in any other way from saying they are Christian but consider God to be a metaphor for a non-sentient universe or something, but then that's no longer a theism

And these beliefs are not supported by science. — S

And there it is. Not supported is not the same as incompatible.

This would mean that current scientists who have beliefs that are not currenly supported by science, but will be next month or in twenty years or more have beliefs that are incompatible with science. It would mean that lots of people, both scientists and non-scientists, who have been correct had beliefs that were incompatible with science, when in fact it was merely that their beliefs were not supported (or falsified) by current science.

No? Didn't think so. — S

Lose the attitude.

Things that are not supported
is a set of things
that is not the same as the set of things that are incompatible. The latter is a smaller subset of the former. And that's not even getting into revision related to induction.

I'll give a specific example: rogue waves. Individuals at sea reported seeing solitary huge waves. scientists poo pooed these sightings as emotionally influenced estimations or hallucinations. Then technology changed and there were videos. Then it changed more, and satellite images showed them. Now the scientists set about explaining it.

The rogue waves were not incompatible with current science. But there were not supported in any way by current models. Yet, some set of scientists thought in binary and conflating terms.

If there is nothing to support it in current science, then it is incompatible. That's binary. There is the category of things that are not supported now but that may be later. And some of those are true or science itself is complete.

Well, you can prove analytical negatives, right off the bat. No bachelors are married.

But again 1) all swans are white
is the positive formulation of that and has exacly the same problems.

Each time you focus on the negative, it seems to me you think it has a special problem.

It seems to me, possibly, there is a conflation between evidence of absence and proving a negative.

And in the realm of proofs, again, all statements

you would need to examine all currently-living swans, all swans that have lived in the past, and (if you want to — Pattern-chaser

Well, the verb 'is' eliminates the time jumping. But this is all true for the positive. Not sure how we got back here to this again.

I try to avoid the word. Heck, I have even tried, elsewhere in here to get people to drop 'T' from JTB. I use true and truth in many contexts. But once we are talking about a definition of knowledge saying it is true adds no information and is not the conclusion of any process after justification.

[Edited to add: and you can't prove a negative.] — Pattern-chaser

That's just what your gut tells you.:razz:

Whether you like it or not, religions do make factual claims, not just normative claims. — S

Sure, but there the core claims do not contradict science. The core claims that many hold, which do not go into the claims that, for example, fundamentalists hold. One can easily be Christian and believe in a God, believe that Jesus had great tips about being good and close(r) to God, and then, yes, that the normative claims are correct. One can not care much about when exactly the world formed and other parts of the Bible that are directly contradicted by science. And there is a distinction between direct contradiction and something not being supported by current models or even seemingly extremely unlikely given current models.

People are floppy in their use of proof. Though perhaps that your point.
But it ain't just negatives, then.

And yes, lot's of the best stuff that would be good to have proof of, you have to rely on your intuition plus analysis of stuff idiosyncratically. Of course, everyone does that, even the people judging others for doing that.