It's supported by the vast results it has produced, which Platonic metaphysics hasn't come anywhere near to producing. — S
A method is a way of proceeding in activities. It may be supported by a system of guidelines, rules or something like that. That a specified activity has produced favourable results may be cited as justification for the method, only after the fact. Since this cited success is necessarily posterior to proceeding into the activities employing the method, it is impossible that this is what supports the method. To account for what supports the method is to account for the foundation of its existence. What supports the method is what inspires one to proceed into the activity employing the method, and this is necessarily prior to the success of the method, as a cause of its success. — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you consider, for instance, that merely assuming 'the natural world is explainable' is a "recourse to metaphysics"?
If you're asking what kind of reflection is required to understand the world ... — frank
Yes, I think that would be a metaphysical assumption. Especially, but not only, if it means [ ... ] — Coben
So then naturalism is not tied to physicalism. — Coben
Why do you class scientists as naturalists? — Metaphysician Undercover
I think that to assume that something which has not yet been explained, is explainable, is a metaphysical assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover
if a model or meta-model gives its users confidence, a sense of cohesive understanding, this may lay the ground for productivity. Call it a potential placebo effect if one must. I would black box that. — Coben
Too literal. :wink: Here's a quote:
Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. — Wikipedia — Pattern-chaser
None of what you just said has anything to do with truth, so it is missing the point. I was criticising the proposition which you previously mentioned, that "truth itself is only a meaningful notion with regards utility". No, it isn't. It is meaningful without that, as I demonstrated with my example. You've got the statement, and you've got the truth-maker. That's what makes truth meaningful. — S
I'm presuming in this that you're arguing the "truth-maker" here is correspondence with reality? That's fine when the subject matter is empirical, as with science, but here we're talking about metaphysical propositions. One of which would be that "truth" is correspondence with reality, which would be a required foundation for the principle above. — Isaac
He said it was only true with regards to utility. The only way to see if it is true is related to utility. There is no knowing something is true without it having utility. It has to predict something, lead to something.
I think you are interpreting 'utility' to mean something beyond this. Like it has to be a valuable tool or something. The fact must effectively tunction in predicting something. That is its truth. — Coben
Any idea upon which we can ride, so to speak; any idea that will carry us prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other part, linking things satisfactorily, working securely, simplifying, saving labor; is true for just so much, true in so far forth, true instrumentally. This is the ‘instrumental’ view of truth. (1907 [1975: 34])
Re: my comment in the other thread. You didn't have to be nicey nicey to me here, but there's no reason to say 'speak dumb' here. — Coben
Now you made up a description of the earth as a hexagon, one for which you have no pragmatic uses, I assume, as if this showed that pragmatic truth is a poor theory. We know that Newtonian notions of absolute space, for example, and absolute motion, are not correct, in some correspondance theory of truth. Einstein took that away. However Newton's truths are incredibly effective. I think it useful to consider them true. and who knows, maybe someone will override Einstein. — Coben
You think your ideas about truth eliiminate having false truths?
Your epistemology is infallible? — Coben
Yes, that's what truth is. Truth doesn't require utility. Were you talking about something else? — S
By what measure could you possibly know you are wrong about a metaphysical position such as to be self-corrective? — Isaac
Good point! This potential vs real argument is another example of how "binary thinking" (either/or, black/white, real/ideal dichotomies) can be confusing when philosophical discussions get way down close to apeiron (infinity). That's why I prefer to speak in terms of a physics/metaphysics continuum. In the Enformationism theory, there is no hard line between Physics (matter) and Meta-Physics (mind). It's all shape-shifting Information, all the way down.So, yes, these "potential realities" do not "exist in spacetime" rather they give rise to the actuality that is spacetime. This is also in line with what apokrisis used to go on about; the idea of the "apeiron" and all that. For another take on this idea see also Incomplete Nature by Terence Deacon. — Janus
Sugercoat. Again the false dichtomy. Just argue the case, show the errors.Of course there's reason to use that term here, otherwise I wouldn't have used it here. Look, I'm not going to sugarcoat my language for your sake. An example of speaking dumb would be to call left "right" and falsehoods "truths". If I think you're speaking dumb, I'll say so. — S
No, it was hypothetical, a thought experiment, where you're supposed to assume that the hexagonal Earth theory is of pragmatic use. Obviously I wasn't giving a real world example, obviously. — S
Now you are defending your theory of truth which it seems is correspondence. I even specifically said that if that was your theory you are a believer of good theory of truth. But that's not the issue.But how can something not be true if it corresponds with reality, thereby making it so? — S
The scientific method has been widely applied and has produced vast and seriously impressive results. That's what supports it. — S
So are you suggesting that there aren't any non-metaphysical - methodological - grounds for attempting to explain unexplained states-of-affairs? — 180 Proof
Yes. I was impressed with his non-reductionist approach to the question of how Life might have emerged from non-life. Although, as a scientist, he was careful to avoid crossing the line into metaphysics, "the power of absence" is essentially a metaphysical concept, in the sense that it is not an observation but an inference.Ah, I see you are already aware of Deacon's work. — Janus
Yes, I read that. It's why many people find justification for their traditional religious beliefs in Quantum Theory and other cutting-edge notions that stray from the "hard" physics of Isaac Newton. But my semi-religious worldview is basically an update of ancient notions of "Soul" and "Spirit" in terms of the current understanding of how the world works. e.g. No mercurial gods on thrones, but a nerdy cosmic Programmer running an evolutionary program. :smile:Anyone else read Philosophy Now?
A neat argument that much of modern theoretical physics is actually bad metaphysics. — Banno
Although, as a scientist, he was careful to avoid crossing the line into metaphysics, "the power of absence" is essentially a metaphysical concept, in the sense that it is not an observation but an inference. — Gnomon
The kind of necessity proper to mathematical demonstrations cannot be transferred to philosophy. For another, it suggests that there is an activity that is distinctively proper to metaphysics, and the tool for that activity is natural (as opposed to formal) language. — Jack-N
I think facts are processes that do things, not things that are true. — Coben
To me this would apply to any position on truth: correspondance, identity, pragmatic...Or maybe it's a fun game like chess but we should be advancing our career, etc., but can't let go of the fantasy that a certain kind of talk is Serious. — joshua
In fact, I tend to look at truth in a few ways. I am eclectic and ad hoc. — Coben
But where it is important I think, is that the pragmatic approach is more likely to allow one to practice na idea over time to see if it works, rather than deciding yes, this is true so I will apply it. I think this is much more useful, lol, than not allowing this. Now of course someone with a correspondance truth model can do this, but I think they are much less likely to. — Coben
I think there is an inherent humilty in pragmatic approaches, and it is more exploratory. — Coben
To me this would apply to any position on truth: correspondance, identity, pragmatic... — Coben
I'll let you be the judge of that. But I suspect that Deacon is not familiar with my personal definition of Meta-Physics. He would probable equate Metaphysics with Religion and Supernatural.I agree that "the power of absence" is a metaphysical concept, so did he really avoid crossing the line into metaphysics? — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.