This confusing mix is made even more complicated by your idiosyncratic understanding of what metaphysics; or as you put it, meta-physics; is. Even I, who am sympathetic to discussions of the subject, find your approach difficult to defend. — T Clark

My idiosyncratic definition of "metaphysics" was established by Aristotle. But the Antis "conventional" definition was established by Catholic Theologians. I'm merely trying to dissociate Metaphysics (the mental aspects of the world) from that prejudice. I've tried various alternative terms, but the Antis see through the subterfuge, and attack their conventional foe, instead of my unconventional redefinition. It's based on Quantum & Information Theories that are also contentious. Se la vie. :smile:

I refer to that anti-heretical attitude as Scientism — Gnomon

That's dogmatism, not scientism. Scientism says 'only the results of experimentally verified theories and formal theorems "count as knowledge" and all else are merely unwarranted beliefs.' Dogmatism says 'my way or the highway – orthodoxy / orthopraxy – whether "my way" is scientistic or idealistic' ... in other words, dogma which is an artifact of a religious (i.e. idolatrous) mindset. Your "BothAnd Enformationism", for instance, is dogmatic (a pseudo-scientistic "Meta-physics"), Gnomon, and thus, you defensively project your own intellectual failings on your justifiably skeptical critics (e.g. the OP) just like Wayfarer, schopenhauer1, Bartricks & other conspicuous incorribles do. But hey, I – "180 Proof, drunk on his own hooch" – am just a dialectical rodeo-clown, so what do I know, right? :sweat:

Yes. That's why I refer to that anti-heretical attitude as Scientism. It's an absolute Either/Or, Win/Lose, Self/Other, My-way-or-the-highway worldview. It violates Aristotle's definition of Virtue in terms of Moderation. — Gnomon

You're quite clear in your message.

Let me put it this way:

"The road to world peace is paved with everyone wearing their underwear on the outside, and everyone also getting a complete sex-change operation with someone else of the originally opposite sex."

You don't believe this? You are closed-minded. You think this is stupid? You are violating Aristotle's definition of Virtue in terms of moderation. YOU MUST BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE OR HEAR, EVEN THINGS THAT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER, OTHERWISE YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT DEVOTED TO SCIENTISM.

Please understand: You are free to believe what you believe in. I am free to believe in what I believe in. One of the things I believe in is that it is easier to believe and accept one's own beliefs than to start on a long and arduous path of a study of science.

In fact, it is the ease of belief that makes people accept New Age stuff, religious beliefs and Tarot card readings and Astrological predictions. Because they are all pre-ambled with "You don't have to understand it, and nobody knows why, but the process works." Whereas science is something the scientism followers INSIST you must understand to believe it.

My belief is that stupidity is easier spread and accepted than knowledge, and insisting on giving stupid theories a fair chance for acceptance is even stupider than the theories themselves.

I'm merely trying to dissociate Metaphysics (the mental aspects of the world) from that prejudice. — Gnomon

I don't consider metaphysics as "the mental aspects of the world," and I doubt Aristotle did. Admittedly, that opinion is based on what I've read others say Aristotle said, not on a personal reading.

My belief is that stupidity is easier spread and accepted than knowledge, and insisting on giving stupid theories a fair chance for acceptance is even stupider than the theories themselves. — god must be atheist

:100: × :100: :up:

My belief is that stupidity is easier spread and accepted than knowledge, and insisting on giving stupid theories a fair chance for acceptance is even stupider than the theories themselves. — god must be atheist

Exactly! Especially weird stupìdity like the MWI in quantum mechanics, accepted by some Nobel Prizers.

Stupidity is exemplified by calling things you do not (cannot?) understand "stupid".

Stupidity is exemplified by calling things you do not (cannot?) understand "stupid" — 180 Proof

Stupid!

Stupidity is exemplified by calling things you do not (cannot?) understand "stupid". — 180 Proof

Is that why you wrote :100: x :100: ?

The only reason I call the MWI stupid is because I understand it! And it shows you don't or can't. :rofl:

MWI — EugeneW

I got into a mud-slinging duel by challenging some user on the forum to not use abbreviations that are less widely accepted and understood than WTF and LOL.

I don't know what MWI stand for. Care to type out the words the initials stand for? I won't look it up on Wiki. It is not my responsibility to make me understand what you said. You said this because you wanted to communicate something to me; so make it please so that I can understand it. Write out please the words that are initialized in the abbreviation MTI.

It means the many worlds interpretation. I brought it on for 180booze especially... I knew he would react.

Yeah, I remember. CMB...

D-K morons are often onanistic too Just saying, kid ...

Scientism says 'only the results of experimentally verified theories "count as knowledge" and all else are merely unwarranted beliefs.' — 180 Proof

All due respect, and at risk of opening a can of worms, how is that any different from positivism?

Positivism noun (Philosophy)
A philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism anything else.

In fact, it is the ease of belief that makes people accept New Age stuff, religious beliefs and Tarot card readings and Astrological predictions. Because they are all pre-ambled with "You don't have to understand it, and nobody knows why, but the process works." — god must be atheist

Yet, since I use taboo terms, like "metaphysics" & "holism", apparently you have jumped to the conclusion that I'm some kind of religious wacko-nut. — Gnomon

Greetings. I do not think you are nutty, sir. A bit knotty perhaps. The 'informagical' barb was lobbed not at old time religion but at a more sophisticated mutterphysics that abandons the more embarrassing superstitions to 'sniff clue.'

But I remain an open-minded Agnostic, not a "negative" Atheist. You could say that, philosophically, I'm a William James "melioristic skeptic". Pleased to meet you! :smile: — Gnomon

Hopefully we're all 'open-minded skeptics' here. Those who come off as 'negative' atheists are perhaps just more stringent or prefer a more angular style. 'Agnostic' is a fish of a handshake for my mummy.

A typical attitude of antagonistic posters is this : "Since ‘metaphysical’ realities have no discernible impact on anything whatsoever, it’s completely unimportant whether they ‘exist’ or not. " — Gnomon

Is it not wise to abandon the muck of a dialogue made mostly obsolete precisely by and within that 'wary' dialogue? The 'soak' puppet battle of 'mound' and 'mutter' (or 'mine' and 'mother') is behind us now, or behind those of us who continued with that dialogue until it caught its own tale.

That true/false hostility to intangibles is probably due to the intrinsic monistic Materialism of modern science. — Gnomon

Such 'Materialism' looks like a bogyman to me. A few are still gettable who'll put on the cape and horns for a laugh or in a fit of sentimental nostalgia, but methinks those days are otherwise behind us (though certainly they hound us). The 'math' (or the 'mop') is not the territory. Atoms are no more 'Real' than apples. Or (returning to 'semantic pragmatism') it snot worth the wind to say so. We need knot wiggle the wand.

Critical analysis of truth claims is the primary tool of Philosophy. — Gnomon

Don't forget the forging of and the foraging for such claims. Consider your own claim above.

And what would that be? — magritte

Contrast whatever it is with the false epistemological modesty of a camouflaged evangelist who 'nose wets' at the End and not the And of inquiry.

ICU

We have to have something to kvetch about. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Tanquam ex ungue leonem ? 'The goes was mud of words.' Hamlet's paw was poisoned through the ere (promise creamed.)

Hey thanks for clearing that up.

We have to have something to kvetch about. Otherwise, what’s the point? — Wayfarer

Critics of the game are still players, no? It's the game of getting beyond mirror games. The future isn't what it youth to be.

D-K morons are often onanistic too Just saying, kid ... — 180 Proof

I loooove to onanonanate! Thinking about MWI... It turns me on!

onanonanate! — EugeneW

Beautiful word, friend. You squeezed 'anon' in there, which makes 'beating the gross off with a stink' even creakier. There's also an 'on and on I' hiding in there. Well done.

There's also an 'on and on I' hiding in there. — lll

Thanks fellow member. He asked for it... So I answered. He indeed goes onanon!

To be frank and fair, I've enjoyed posts by both of you, so the misunderstanding seems unfortunate and is hopefully temporary.

But I couldn't help laughing at

He indeed goes onanon! — EugeneW

Reading your posts, you got a way with words! Great!

Thanks! Old Wet-gun-sign talked about a philosophy made of jokes, and I think word play can just maybe show wet cannot be sad.

To be fair, I've enjoyed posts by both of you, so the misunderstanding seems unfortunate and is hopefully temporary. — lll

Sure, but it sometimes leads to nice postings... Straight from the hurt!