Agreed. Ignorance, isolation or exclusion of metaphysics is not scientific.
Having said that, science often attempts to conceal or constrain metaphysics (and thus uncertainty) within a limited value system. This means that those who interpret scientific explanations often remain ignorant, isolated or excluded from the metaphysical information available. — Possibility
Science is based on phenomenology rather than metaphysics. Science deals with phenomena; in other words, science studies things as they appear to us. you can practice science regardless of what your metaphysical commitments, or lack of commitment, look like. — Janus
It seems that Popper was staunchly against logical positivism without the anti-metaphysical attitude against it. — Shawn
I want to understand why metaphysics as a structural issue is incompatible with science as we practice it today, despite metaphysical statements arising within it? — Shawn
It seems to me awkward to say that science is devoid of metaphysics. — Shawn
We have the simulated reality hypothesis, that is seemingly unverifiable yet makes total sense from a scientific perspective. — Shawn
Thus, is science really devoid of metaphysics? It would seem to me that no, science is not devoid of metaphysics, and also has some theories that pertain to the domain of metaphysics. — Shawn
This means that those who interpret scientific explanations often remain ignorant, isolated or excluded from the metaphysical information available — Possibility
Science is based on phenomenology rather than metaphysics. Science deals with phenomena; in other words, science studies things as they appear to us. you can practice science regardless of what your metaphysical commitments, or lack of commitment, look like. — Janus
In my view, the structure of metaphysics is relative, subjective and uncertain — Possibility
Why is it that references to metaphysics never include definition of the term. You people dicsussing the term, of course you-all must know what it means, so it should be easy for you to say. Please say. — tim wood
This means that those who interpret scientific explanations often remain ignorant, isolated or excluded from the metaphysical information available
— Possibility
interpreting explanations is not science, it's metaphysics. What source of metaphysical information is there? — Echarmion
In my view, the structure of metaphysics is relative, subjective and uncertain
— Possibility
Relative to what? — Echarmion
Those who interpret scientific explanations are invariably not doing science - mostly they’re armchair scientists and dilettantes, popular science journalists or philosophers. It’s often like a literal reading of the Bible, devoid of context. But interpreting scientific explanations is not metaphysics, either. — Possibility
The scientific method followed to conclusion is a process of reducing metaphysical information to what is measurable. Metaphysics comes before science, interpretation comes after.
The main source of metaphysical information is human experience. The human mind has been employing the ‘scientific method’ long before it was acknowledged as such, and has developed the capacity to integrate the uncertainty of metaphysical information - which scientific measurement does not - by distinguishing and relating between measurable/observable, potential/valuable and possible/meaningful information on multiple dimensional levels. — Possibility
Relative to perceived potential/value. — Possibility
Physics: the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy.
Meta-: with, after or beyond; more comprehensive, transcending.
Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space.
I would define metaphysics as concerned with relational structures and concepts inclusive of, but not limited to, the nature and properties of matter and energy. — Possibility
I want to understand why metaphysics as a structural issue is incompatible with science as we practice it today, despite metaphysical statements arising within it? — Shawn
It seems to me awkward to say that science is devoid of metaphysics.
We have the simulated reality hypothesis, that is seemingly unverifiable yet makes total sense from a scientific perspective.
Thus, is science really devoid of metaphysics? It would seem to me that no, science is not devoid of metaphysics, and also has some theories that pertain to the domain of metaphysics.
Would you agree with this? — Shawn
Untestable conjectures, especially those which don't explain anything more than current explanations and/or which are not parsimonious, are pseudo-scientific (Popper) and not, as I understand it, metaphysical.It seems to me awkward to say that science is devoid of metaphysics.
We have the simulated reality hypothesis, that is seemingly unverifiable yet makes total sense from a scientific perspective. — Shawn
Is science devoid of conceptual (i.e. categorical) presuppositions?Thus, is science really devoid of metaphysics?
No. Metaphysics, again as I understand it, proposes criteria for discerning 'impossible worlds' (i.e. ways actuality necessarily cannot be) from 'possible worlds' (i.e. ways actuality can be) - btw, I'm an actualist, not a possibilist - thereby concerning the most general states of affairs; unlike the sciences, which consist of testing models of how possible transformations of specific, physical (class, or domain, of) state of affairs from one to another (can be made to) happen, and thus is explanatory (even if only approximative, probabilistic), metaphysics explains only concepts abstracted from, and therefore useful for categorizing, (experience of(?)) 'how things are', and does not explain any facts of the matter. Metaphysics is not theoretical.It would seem to me that no, science is not devoid of metaphysics, and also has some theories that pertain to the domain of metaphysics.
Would you agree with this?
In Metaphysics Α.1, Aristotle says that “all men suppose what is called wisdom (sophia) to deal with the first causes (aitia) and the principles (archai) of things” (981b28), and it is these causes and principles that he proposes to study in this work. — SEP
A wise person must have a true conception of unproven first principles and also know the conclusions that follow from them. “Hence Wisdom must be a combination of Intelligence [Intellect; νοῦς] and Scientific Knowledge [ἐπιστήμη]: it must be a consummated knowledge of the most exalted objects.” Contemplation is that activity in which ones νοῦς (nous) intuits and delights in first principles.
Why is it that references to metaphysics never include definition of the term. You people dicsussing the term, of course you-all must know what it means, so it should be easy for you to say. Please say. — tim wood
You can't exclude metaphysics from phenomenology, or can you...?
How? — Shawn
Metaphysics, then, being not science (because lacking the subject matter that is the province of science), cannot be the scientific-kind of thinking, but it certainly can be organized thinking. And following your definition as best we can, metaphysics, then, is organized thinking about matters of science.
But organized thinking, then, of what about science? You have listed "first principles," including "being, knowing, identity, time, and space." These would seem to include matters from other departments of philosophy not metaphysics. As such, the metaphysician uses the tools provided by other departments of philosophy, and science, and whatever wisdom tells her/him is appropriate for the task - as we all try do all the time, though perhaps the metaphysician's business is at all times to subject his own thinking to an attendant critical thinking that runs alongside.
What that leaves is an organized and critical thinking about a determinate subject matter, namely the thinking of scientists, itself understood as an organized, scientific-kind of thinking about the world. — tim wood
metaphysics is a branch of knowledge that is based on universal and necessary knowledge obtained in the sole light of reason (without being based on experience). — David Mo
That applies to pure maths, also. — Wayfarer
Metaphysics is a branch of knowledge that is based on universal and necessary knowledge obtained in the sole light of reason (without being based on experience). — David Mo
Mathematics and logic are formal sciences. That is, they are not based on experience and they do not talk about facts. — David Mo
Metaphysics anticipates the general structures of reality by formulating the way our knowing operates. Science actually works out the explanation of the data by a never-ending process of research. — Bernard Lonergan
I would say that scientists do metaphysics a lot.
To use the concept of an electron to make predictions is science.
To claim that an electron exists (which scientists do al the time) is metaphysics. — A Seagull
the interpretation of science is not necessarily metaphysical. Although it can be. When scientists and philosophers discuss what kind of reality an electron is they are not doing metaphysics. They're doing philosophy of science, which is something else. — David Mo
You're throwing a lot of terms out here, which seem to lack a definition in the context. If metaphysical inmformation is just human experience, then what is "meta" about it? Experience is the base level, how things appear. Observation is merely a subset of experience, and measurement is a specific form of observation. The term "scientific measurement" refers to certain circumstances, but it's not an epistemological category. All observations, "scientific" or not, can be used as input for the scientific method. So, experience is the physical. The meta-level to that is interpretation of it's results. — Echarmion
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space. — Possibility
Certainly claiming that an electron exists is interpretation of science from a metaphysical perspective — Possibility
Metaphysical information is not JUST human experience - it is from human experience, however, (ours and others) that we source our metaphysical information. — Possibility
inclusive of interoceptive affect, qualitative evaluation and quantitative potential. — Possibility
Measurement is one, two or three-dimensional information, — Possibility
observation is four-dimensional and experience is five-dimensional — Possibility
It is the irreducible five-dimensional information - the uncertain, subjective and relative details of an experience - which pertains to metaphysics in particular. — Possibility
Interpreting scientific results draws once again on metaphysical information in relation to the experience, but this is not doing metaphysics as such. — Possibility
What makes you say that? — Shawn
It doesn't fit your own definition of metaphysics. Much less with the Kantian concept of metaphysics: our knowledge of the electron comes from experience. Any reflection on it is subject to that experience. It's not the level of abstraction of the first principles. When Bohr and Einstein differ on the nature of atomic particles they are doing philosophy (of science), not science. Their opposition is based on reasons that are not refuted by experience, sure. But that doesn't mean they're navigating in pure abstraction. If you want to adopt the neo-positivist concept of metaphysics, we're in another discussion. — David Mo
I would define metaphysics as concerned with relational structures and concepts inclusive of, but not limited to, the nature and properties of matter and energy. — Possibility
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.