The scientific method is our best methodology for finding out truths about the workings and structure of the universe and truths that lead to technologies.
I do also think that the scientific method has a much better chance of eventually explaining the origins of such phenomena as human consciousness and human psychology (via neuroscience) when compared to the chances of getting any reliable answers from the supernatural, the mystical, theism, theosophistry, magic, astrology, tea leaves or the entrails of a chicken. — universeness

I was not finding fault with your affection for the scientific method. I'm an engineer with a strong interest in science. That has a lot to do with my interest in philosophy. On the other hand, I think you were misusing the term when you were discussing how most people, and I assume you, make decisions about what's going on in the world. Unless you are very unusual, perhaps unique, you don't examine every fact rationally and test if for validity. You make assumptions, listen to what other people tell you, follow your intuition. While I think intuition ultimately comes from experience, in my experience it and it's contents are not rational or logical.

I was only kiddin Ken — universeness

I learned everything I know about prehistory from the Flintstones. Yabba Dabba Do.

It's a fair point, I know. — Baden

I'm not expecting any change in policy. This is just intended as a request to each of you. No need for further discussion on my part.

It's optional and not a bad idea in principle. But let's not pretend this is about writing a one sentence PM. The PM will almost certainly be responded to and very often instigate a debate. — Baden

Once I started a thread that Jamal took offense with. Once I realized it had been moved to the lounge, I talked it over with him and he reinstated it to the main page. But it took me a while to figure out that it had even been moved.

Because there are often a dozen posts in the moderation queue. — Michael

If you've got time to delete the thread, you've got time to post a one sentence PM.

I would appreciate if moderators, when they delete or move a thread, would notify the person who started it. Then if the poster wants an explanation, they can ask directly. I can't understand why moderators resist doing that, except in particularly egregious examples of abuse. It would only take a few seconds.

Why do you think this is so? Each human gathers empirical evidence from birth. — universeness

I think this comes down to what we mean by empirical. Here are some definitions from the web:

• Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.
• Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.
• Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

So, anyway. I agree that most if not all of what we know comes from experience. But I think very little of it comes from formal, or even conscious, learning or observation. If by "empirical," you mean anything learned from personal experience or from someone else, then I agree with you, but I think that's a big stretch for the meaning of the word. But you go even further:

The scientific method can be applied by anyone seeking new knowledge of any kind.

It has been honed since the moment a human first started to try to make sense of its own existence, so It's not exclusive to scientists or only when a person is doing science.
Any idea, suggestion or belief should be challenged, modeled, tested, evaluated etc.
I will not accept something as true until I see the evidence that it's true. — universeness

You don't just say "experience," you say "the scientific method." Fred Flintstone certainly learned from experience and from what he was taught by others, but to call that the scientific method is silly. You also say this:

I think even human instincts, are based on empirical evidence gained by our earliest ancestors. — universeness

So, now our instincts are included within the scientific method. In reality, I'm sure you make most of your decisions like the rest of us do - primarily by intuition and what other people have told you. And that's fine, but it's not challenging, modelling, testing, and evaluating any idea, suggestion, or belief. You accept things as true all the time without seeing evidence that they are true.

In Carl Sagan's book 'The Dragons of Eden.' He talks about the human sounds 'shhhhhhhhhhh' and 'pssssssssssst.' Scientists suggest that human babies recognise these two sounds from birth, instinctively. They are signals for a human to become quieter and come from our days in the wild, living in caves at night. They are both sounds that reptiles make. Reptiles were the biggest nighttime threat to humans sleeping in caves and they could find you if you made a sound. — universeness

I really liked Carl, but this is the kind of bullshit you get when you start talking about evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. People love to make up farfetched evolutionary explanations when there is no evidence at all. Everyone knows dinosaurs were the biggest threat to humans.

Seems to me you two are doing something different from what Angelo Cannata is doing. He is telling you how he determines what he has to do to act in an ethical manner, i.e. in accordance with his conscience. You're trying to set out rules by which you can judge other people's behavior. Those are two separate things. — Clarky

Actually that's my take too. I'm saying that 'your own conscience' is not a good foundation as there is nothing one can't justify using such an approach. People justify slavery, sexual assault, murder, theft, anything horrendous, based on their own conscience (or lack of one). I also don't yet see how his answer relates to the OP. — Tom Storm

I'm a bit lost. Here's what you asked for in the OP:

I'd like to explore how moral choices might be informed by postmodern philosophy (which I recognize is an umbrella term for a range of positions)...How might postmodernism be helpful in determining how we should/could live? — Tom Storm

How has @Angelo Cannata not responded to your OP? It makes sense to me that you may not like what he has to say, but his response is consistent with my understanding of how post-modern morals works. Post-modernism rejects the idea of restrictions imposed by tradition or social coercion. It is not ends-based, it's process-based. It's means, not ends that matter. I'm guessing that's mostly how you live your life - you follow your conscience.

Ok. And I am not trying to give offence here, Angelo, but why should anyone care? Are you saying that morality is simply a matter of personal preferences - between you and your god/abyss? In which case is there any position that can't be justified using this personal approach, from pedophilia to genocide? — Tom Storm

The account given by ↪Angelo Cannata starts with considerations of "history" - what I might call "background" or "being embedded" - but then slides into being "subjective", opening itself up to your critique. It has failed to follow through on the fact of our shared world, reverting to some form of solipsism, and as a result fails to deal with the problem of what we ought to do. — Banno

Seems to me you two are doing something different from what @Angelo Cannata is doing. He is telling you how he determines what he has to do to act in an ethical manner, i.e. in accordance with his conscience. You're trying to set out rules by which you can judge other people's behavior. Those are two separate things.

I cannot call it a system, because it is not static, definitive. It is my today’s method, that actually I have been practicing for many years. But tomorrow I might change idea. — Angelo Cannata

Yes, you're right. I didn't like "system" either, but I couldn't think of a better word.

I think that an essential element that is normally ignored in discussions about postmodernism is history. History considered at all levels: the history of universe, history of nature, of people, your own personal history. If you don’t think about it, history will make choices for you. History includes also your DNA, your body. As people that have some psychological feel of freedom, we try to bring some active contribution in history, by using awareness, intelligence, critical sense, emotions, spirituality, to make choices. This way you don’t need any fixed rule, any dogma, any principle: you received from history your humanity, sensitivity, emotions, intelligence, everything. Every moment you make your best synthesis of all these things and you make your choices. Once you become familiar with this way, you can see that you have no need for principles, values, reference points. You are just a human, a person, a good person, and, as such, you don't need moral systems. What are moral systems for? — Angelo Cannata

Is this your description of a post-modern ethical system? It seems like that could be your intention and it makes sense.

I am a lot more uncomfortable with a leap of faith, than I am with actions based on studied empirical evidence. — universeness

Very little of what we know is based on "studied empirical evidence."

I don't much like it either but I feel more and more compulsion to combat the use of metaphysical and supernatural synonymously, whenever people try to do so. — universeness

To be fair, it is part of the common meaning of "metaphysics." It goes back to what you said about the word being overburdened.

Forget the emotional side. Factually, the parallel between God and parents is far stronger than you suggest. Both are givers of life. Both provide sustainance. Both decide right and wrong. Both reward virtue, and punish misdeeds. Both are turned to when in distress, and for guidance. Both are to be obeyed, above all others.

These godly features of parents are not idiosyncratic to my upbringing. Gods are parents taken to an abstract ideal. — hypericin

I don't mind making a metaphorical connection between God and parents, but you've made a stronger argument than that:

There is a certain kind of mindset which finds this new universe not exhilarating, but a hollow arena of misery and emptiness. I call this mindset conservative: it rejects the new world, unadorned by parental Gods, as malignant, as nihilistic. The void must be filled: they fill it with The Parent, but taken to the logical extreme: the parent of all parents, which undergirds all meaning and all judgement until the end of time. — hypericin

This implies that religion developed historically as a response to our disappointment with our parents. You've used that to undermine the credibility of those who believe in God. That's what I object to.

Cool, there's a controversy — ZzzoneiroCosm

I don't see it as a controversy. I am used to thinking of epistemology as part of metaphysics. I think it's time for me to reexamine that understanding.

I don't advocate for restricting how others choose to use language but based on the OP, I do want to assess the 'shakiness' of the ground I will be on if I choose to challenge anyone who tries to connect the term metaphysics with the term supernatural and its related nomenclature. — universeness

Metaphysics is commonly used as a synonym for supernatural or religious. I don't really like that, so I try to avoid the discussion because I don't think it is easily resolvable.

Hmmm, I always learned it that way and accepted it as a given it seems. I must have gotten it from somewhere because I was quite certain, but well pssible you are right. I thought they were the two branches of metaphysics. Maybe it is Collingwood actually. It does not make much of a difference to me though. Let's treat them as separate then... — Tobias

It's not in Collingwood, I checked. As I said, perhaps I'll start a new thread.

For philosophers, they are distinct categories. — Jackson

I'm thinking of starting a thread to examine my belief that they are inseparable. Really the same thing.

Common to mistakenly include epistemology within metaphysics, it seems. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Oxford English Dictionary; Metaphysics - The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Metaphysics - A division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology.

My understanding is that epistemology is about the nature of knowledge and metaphysics is about the nature of reality. The scientific method as methodology is a useful framework that may not necessarily have a metaphysical implication. Though certaintly an epistemological. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It is common to include epistemology as part of metaphysics. It is also common to consider them separate. I don't think it make sense to talk about them separately. How can I talk about the nature of what exists without talking about how I know it? If there's any confusion in my posts, substitute "metaphysics and epistemology" for "metaphysics."

There are already an number of strands of thinking in philosophy and the cognitive sciences ( Peirceian semiotics, phenomenology, enactivism) that have redefined the natural in a way that that goes beyond the grounding of nature that physics offers. — Joshs

This makes sense to me.

I've seen other prominent posters point out the fact that the scientific method is a methodology not an ontology but is often mistaken for the latter. I accept this as an important point that clears up an area of confusion. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The scientific method is epistemology. Epistemology is often included within metaphysics. I believe that's appropriate.

Okay, guess we're done. — Jackson

Got it. Now explain what that has to do with the relation of science to metaphysics. — Jackson

A poet does not explain his poetry.

Then explain it to me. I do not think there are many scientists who think they are doing metaphysics. — Jackson

A recipe tells you how to cook something, it doesn't cook anything itself.

I am confused by that. His quote would seem to state the oppposite. — Jackson

Perhaps @universeness will tell us what he meant, but I stand behind what I wrote.

I think the scientific method employed by physics is fundamental as the most reliable way of pursuing new knowledge and testing its validity.
— universeness

I always find it amusing when people come to a philosophy forum to say physics is really where truth lays. — Jackson

I'm with @universeness. The scientific method isn't science, it's metaphysics.

Going back to the issue of Murdoch though, there is an essay in the volume 'Existentialists and Mystics', on the idea of perfection. I only looked at this briefly because the volume of writings is large and was pretty intense. So, I will have a reread of the essay on perfection, to see what light this throws on her understanding, because it does seem that she was seeing an important relationship between metaphysics and ethics. — Jack Cummins

Because of the conversation in this thread, I bought "Existentialists and Mystics." After reading one of her novels, I have been intending to read Murdoch's philosophy too.

Mysticism pantomimes metaphysics. — Mere Foolosophy

I might say that mysticism and metaphysics mistake each other for themselves.

God is the lawgiver of the universe. No thanks. — Jackson

Yeah, but f = ma.

I think too many terms like metaphysical, supernatural, spiritual etc can be and have been 'claimed' by those with theosophist leanings and I think philosophers and scientists should work hard to combat this by making the context within which such a term is used, very very clear. — universeness

People with mystical leanings, of which I am one, have as much right to use the English language as anyone else. The way they use it is as legitimate as any other. I certainly don't want to leave language about spirituality in the sole hands of science. On the other hand, yes, we should be clear about what we mean by the words we use.

Yes, a term never used by Arisotle. — Jackson

Agreed.

This may not be apropos of your comment. But I find Quantum Mechanics far closer to how I understand the world than classical, mechanistic physics. — Jackson

I don't know if this is the same thing, but I don't find quantum mechanics weird or strange. After all, it's just the way things are. I'm comfortable with it. On the other hand, I'm definitely a Newtonian kind of guy.

Aristotle did not call it "Metaphysics." — Jackson

Subsequent to the arrangement of Aristotle's works by scholars at Alexandria in the first century CE, a number of his treatises were referred to as τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά (ta meta ta physika; literally, "the [writings] after the Physics"). This is the origin of the title for collection of treatises now known as Aristotle's Metaphysics.

Meta-physics is to physics as meta-data is to data. Take for example a letter. The contents of the letter is the data. The facts about the letter - who it is from, who to, date sent, etc - are meta-data. So physics refers to the behaviour of the observable universe and the physically measurable and observeable entities which comprise it. Meta-physics is reflection on what it means, or what must be the case for it to have the meaning it does, and so on. — Wayfarer

I think this is a good way of putting it, although I think a lot of people would not agree.

So for example in current physics, the metaphysical debates revolve around the meaning of quantum physics - what the quanitifiable observations and predictive theories mean about the larger reality, what is implied by the theory. So too many of the debates about evolutionary biology. I for one would never debate the empirical facts of evolution disclosed by research and exploration - but what does evolution mean? Is it directional, or is it the consequence of chance? and so on. They're also metaphysical questions. — Wayfarer

This is something I'm struggling with. My intuition tells me that most of the excitement about quantum mechanics is not metaphysics. In particular, unless the various interpretations of QM can be tested empirically, it seems to me the differences between them are not metaphysical, they're meaningless. At the very least they are not useful.

As I've said, this is at the top of my list of things to try to figure out.

It seems to me that the term 'metaphysics,' is, to say the least, 'overburdened.' — universeness

This is definitely true, although I don't see that any of the posts you've quoted are necessarily inconsistent with each other. I think we're all, more or less, coloring inside the lines that @Jack Cummins laid out for us at the beginning.

Is there any aspect of your personal interpretation of the term that you associate with the supernatural? And do you see very different 'connotations' or emphasis if you associate the term metaphysics with 'after' physics compared to 'beyond' physics? — universeness

Keeping in mind that Aristotle called it "metaphysics" because it came after physics in his publications, not because it was beyond physics in subject matter or an addition to physics. I tend to see it as the framework for knowledge and understanding, which I guess is what you mean by "beyond" in this context. I had a strong feel for what I thought metaphysics means, or at least what I wanted it to mean or what I thought was needed. Then someone recommended "An Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G. Collingwood. It really helped me tighten up my thinking about it.

As for the supernatural, that's always given me pause when the subject is metaphysics. One of the most important ideas for Collingwood, one that I strongly endorse, is that metaphysical principles are not true or false. That works fine for talking about God or gods in general, but when you get specific, it falls apart. Clearly, although talk of God fits squarely into ontology, specific religions deal with matters of fact too, e.g. the existence of the Christian God and his son Jesus.

• Program where you can see aerial photographs of anywhere in the world.
• Service so you can send pictures, data files, documents, and letters anywhere in the world very quickly .
• Service that let's you buy books or take them out from a library and have them delivered immediately.
• Service where you can watch any movie or TV show ever made for a reasonable price.
• Stores where you can order almost anything and have it delivered very quickly.
• Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.

The reason I resisted using the phrase "two inseparable poles" is that I don't see science and metaphysics in opposition to each other. Metaphysics is the canvas and the frame. Science is the picture. They are certainly related. They need each other. But they shouldn't interfere with each other.

The noetic side contributes memory and anticipation, the reaching out into the event with a framing expectation, the seeing, knowing aspect. But the noematic object that is seen , known , experienced, fills out the expectation but never completely fulfills it. Thus the metaphysical is a pole , a subjective contribution to the act of seeing and experiencing. But it can never subsist in itself as its own ‘context’. — Joshs

I got lost here. For me, metaphysics is context.

But if it's the godlike elemental primacy of parents in early childhood, then it's true, I thought this was shared experience. I can't say I've discussed it much, but I've seen the notion several times in literature. — hypericin

No. It's not true. Clearly this is not a shared experience. "Seeing the notion several times in literature" does not constitute evidence.

I agree, but neither is puppies and chocolate chip cookies. — Tobias

I agree.

When you eat the chocolate chip cookie for instance one might ask when the chocolate chip cookie ceased to be, or whether there is something of the cookie remaining even after eating it, — Tobias

Then your friends all say "Just shut up and eat your cookie." Although if you're a professional philosopher they probably won't.

whether there is something that chocolate chip cookies and puppies have in common. — Tobias

Well, I'm sure puppies like eating chocolate chip cookies. Perhaps cookies like to be eaten by puppies.

I am lost when it comes to qualia. — Tobias

Yes. If I had 383 wishes, the 246th would be that anyone who uses that word would get kicked in the ass. Not too hard.

Jargon is just a tool, right a short hand. — Tobias

Before I retired, I was an environmental engineer. There were lots of technical words we used, but a lot of what we wrote was intended for non-technical readers. We had to find a balance. You need to be able to say technically precise things but at the same time keep it understandable to intelligent non-professionals.

We are very much on the same page I think. — Tobias

Yes, I think we are.

He says that 'consciousness is a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel'. — Wayfarer

This is like saying "Apples are the mystery that human intelligence will never unravel." I answer by picking up an apple and taking a bite. Apples aren't a mystery and neither is consciousness. It's a concept, it's human-made.

Phenomenology became aware of the objectively-unknowable nature of mind and the unstatable presence of the subject, for example. Husserl said 'Consciousness is not a thing among things, it is the horizon that contains everything.' — Wayfarer

This is the kind of thing you say when you're sitting around the campfire with a flashlight under your chin trying to scare the other campers. Ooooohhh! What's that noise? It's making too much of something that is as everyday as apples. People always want to make too much of consciousness. They want to act as if, believe that, it's special, mysterious. It must be special or I'm not special. And we're not.

what is 'really there' is assumed to be the objects amenable to scientific analysis (because if they're not amenable to that, then how can we know them? — Wayfarer

And they are amenable to scientific analysis, but that's not the only way they can be known. It's not even necessarily the best, or at least the best in all possible situations.

Which is basically 'the hard problem' again, and it's not a pseudo-problem! — Wayfarer

It is.

But it is precisely the 'objective stance' which has been called into question by the discovery of the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in early 20th C physics, hence opening the door to contemplation of the role of the subject. — Wayfarer

Again, this is mixing up physics and metaphysics.

And also generally by 'the rediscovery of the subject' which has also happened in more recent philosophy. And that is a momentous change in perspective, and also a cultural change, that we're actually living through, albeit in fits and starts, in today's culture. — Wayfarer

I'm skeptical. If there's a positive change that's needed in science, it's not a rediscovery of the subject, it's a recognition that everything's connected - an ecological understanding of the world. I'd say "holistic" but that has too many associations with mysticism - mysteries and magic. New age "philosopy."

The world is the world. I'll use one of my favorite quotes again - Franz Kafka. Horrible, depressing books. Great aphorisms.

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet.

Why is your culturally relative evaluation of reality relevant here? Are you presenting an argument based on that? — Hanover

If you care enough to follow the chain of posts back to how this started in a response to a post by Tobias a few pages back, you can find how the questions arose in the context of this thread. I don't imagine you want to do that, so let's leave it there.