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
Philosophy has three* principal parts, metaphysics being one of them broadly deals with the same topics as science but often without the focus on empiricism and scientific method, like Aristotelian hand-waving . The branch is IMO- a dead one.
And a side question, is analytic or theoretical physics under the field of philosophy of physics?
Such as when dealing with axioms, paradigms, and properly basic beliefs/assumptions, conducting meta-analysis studies, the debate between idealism realism nominalism antirealism instrumentalism of science and scientific theories and facts, Digital Physics theories, if the universe is a closed system or what came before/is outside the universe, if information is metaphysical and/or more fundamental than space-time, matter-energy and the fundamental forces?
Or how much does psychology, neuroscience have to do with the field of philosophy of the mind,
like when studying the mind and metacognition (written language and manifestation of symbolism and abstraction), what the relationship between the mind and brain are (like Cartesian-Substance Dualism, dual aspect idealism, Epiphenomenalism, non-Reductive Physicalism or Neutral Monism), or the relationship between data in mind/brains vs hardware/software of AIs, nature and nurture, libertarian free will vs determinism vs compatibilism, meta cognitive self-awareness of those diagnosed with tourette or aspergers or down syndrome, mental/cognitive force i.e. "mind over matter" phenomena of mind manipulating chemical composition of brain, Epistemological discussions on Perceptual Cognition/Visual Cortex/phenomenological experience of reality (subjectivism from myths [historical proper definition] and worldview of observers [like a religion, materialism, solipsism, scientism, physicalism, reductionism, etc.]), unified perception and visual binding problem, the map–territory relation or Kant's phenomenal vs Noemenal distinctions, the reliability of the human mind (since the human mind is involved in all experiments and measurements) in discovering scientific facts/knowledge (the debate of a priori/analytic epistemology vs empirical epistemology from limitations of knowledge such as from the Problem of Criterium, agrippa's trilemma, problem of universals, problem of bayesian knowledge, godel's incompleteness theorem (maths), tarski's undefinability theorem (logic), open question argument and fact-value distinction and is-ought dilemma (moral knowledge), quantum physics general theory of relativity incompatibility and the heisenberg principle of uncertainty and the underdetermination problem (science))
one area where there may be a mutual growth between science, philosophy/ethics is as Gabriel Marcel stated, on the ontological mystery, he says that the most fruitful and profound avenue to understanding being, to understanding metaphysics, to understanding ontology is the study of sanctity, in that if we understand our own being, we can know the being of anything else, and if we understand our ideal form we can truly know our true self. As in When you study anatomy, instead of studying diseased human body, we define diseases by health. Likewise the ideal human psyche is sanctity rather than vice and unethical behavior which modern psychology uses defective ethical behavior as the standard to measure well being and happiness of people, and if instead people take seriously an ethical ideal form of man, then there wouldn't be issues with deceptive practices in publishing papers, there wouldn't be an irreproducibility crises in science where politics and pseudoscience changes outcomes of studies or uses cheap rhetoric that makes an outcome appear to be valid, and if we understand our ideal selves people would cherish more studying and finding truth and using science for an ultimate good end rather than whatever anyone wants like the nazi scientists to use it to validate their own beliefs of a nazi race or whatever ideologies may influence progress of truth.
And how much does the abbreviation Phd have to do with Philosophy? Although popular opinion is split on that, I guess there's some type of philosophy in everything I suppose, which is why clicking the firtstor second link of every wiki article eventually leads to the philosphy wiki page
But it just seems to me an almost impossible task to discuss anything remotely meaningful in most branches of academia if philosophy is completely rejected, which is impossible, and replaces it with philosophical theories like scientism, physicalism, reductionism, materialism, etc. (and claim that those beliefs are pure science and that they don't hold to any beliefs and that they are not philosophy at all). It seems really ridiculous to the point that you may get banned or silenced if one attempts to discuss these things in these circles, as though they were a cult of scientism or something akin to that — Shushi
Do scientists have an irrational bias against philosophy, specifically philosophy of science? — Shushi
It seems really ridiculous to the point that you may get banned or silenced if one attempts to discuss these things in these circles, as though they were a cult of scientism or something akin to that (I don't mean any offense to them by that, it's just difficult to properly label these sorts of behavior). — Shushi
Do scientists have an irrational bias against philosophy, specifically philosophy of science? — Shushi
To separate philosophy from science is to make science a religion. They think they have eliminated metaphysics from physics, but all they have done is blind themselves to the metaphysics in physics. They often believe they are dealing with the fundamental constituents of existence, and that there is no belief involved in their conclusions or in the reasonings that lead to their conclusions. They are not aware of their metaphysical beliefs, and it takes some philosophizing to uncover them. Without philosophy they just react like a cult — leo
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
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.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
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
I suppose that is a debate within philosophy, such as Idealism vs Realism vs alethic Realism vs Anti-Realism (like an Aristotelian version) vs Nominalism vs Fictionalism etc.So if there is a thing beyond physics... what is it? Why is it "beyond" and not "outside", "under", "above" or "beside" physics?
Wallows
Ask them if the wavefunction is metaphysical and see what they say.
Do the concepts of the Trinity and the soul baffle you? They pale beside the unimaginable otherness of closed space-time, event-horizons, EPR correlations, and bootstrap models
So for you to draw a general statement of what scientists are like or what they think, is a bit unfair if you base it on responses on a so-called science forum.
Am I a venomous religious snake in your opinion? — Coben
It seems as though these individuals are going beyond the scientific method, by making claims that aren't scientifically verifiable about the truth of philosophy (even though science isn't primarily concerned about what is truth but rather the results of expirements and predictions that depend on metaphysical and frameworks about truth and axioms that value ethics, speciifically the virtue of looking for truth), — Shushi
I always have thought that metaphysics itself was not a meaningful term, but a chapter heading that followed Physics in a book written by Aristotle. — god must be atheist
Ask them if the wavefunction is metaphysical and see what they say. — Wallows
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. — Coben
Also, most people on forums are not professionals, or even learned in the topics they discuss. The participants are enthusiastic, but not trained or even smart. This applies to all specialized forums. — god must be atheist
Science is the structured asking and attempts to find the answers to questions. That is, to do any science, you have to ask a question (and of course there conventions and rules on how to go about science - these latter the business of scientists). — tim wood
for example there's the irreproducibility crisis that's stagnating the scientific community as pseudoscience is garnering reputation and conflicts arise about building upon valid ideas through which a simple examination of other's frameworks, ethics, and political biases may be examined and filter those faulty papers that may be rhetorically framed through simple fallacies). — Shushi
I think that most people will agree that information is a metaphysical entity (which "metaphysical entity" depends on what position one takes about abstract objects, which I don't think this point changes much whether one is a realist, anti-realist, nominalist, etc.). — Shushi
That is to say that if you were to ask an honest physicist what electrons were, or what is gravity, or energy, they can describe to you how they are like, but the scientific theories that describe them, do not describe them in a positive sense, as if they exist, like if one were to try to describe coldness, they can't sense that doesn't have a positive existence. — Shushi
I thought I responded to what I cited, and that in context.I just feel like all of a sudden I am the centre of attention, and since my posts were not responded to, — god must be atheist
I haven't read the other long posts, just glanced at them. I can't see how snake pit is much of an analogy for getting long responses in a philosophy forum to a set of complex issues. I'd link you to the long article in Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which goes into some of the complexity related to metaphysics in philosophy, but then this, it would seem, might qualify as venomous.Three very long posts buoyed up very quickly, and I don't see how they relate to my posts. A bit like being in the snake pit... look left, look right, you don't know where to look, there is danger by numbers. — god must be atheist
I just did not understand and still don't why I need to read three very long posts — god must be atheist
You could forget about the intentions, iow ad hom type stuff, and then either choose to read and respond to the posts or not.Maybe I misunderstood the posters' intention. That's possible. I apologize if I did — god must be atheist
This kind of psychic guesswork and insulting metaphor...well, my guess is it won't increase the chances of anyone learning anything or having a good discussion.It looks like I just stepped into a nest of venomous religionist snakes. — god must be atheist
Epistemology is the rules/viewpoints on how we know things, not metaphysics. And it doesn't seem like you responded to any of the points made or what is in the Wikpedia quote. I get that you are disagreeing, but that's about it.I think these types of statements are another reason why scientists don't take philosophy seriously - they demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to acknowledge there is a true and (sometimes) clear separation between metaphysics and science. One, perhaps over-simplistic way of looking at it is that metaphysics sets the rules by which we know things and science describes what we come to know about how the world works. — T Clark
I have no opinion on you. I just feel like all of a sudden I am the centre of attention, and since my posts were not responded to, IN A WAY I UNDERSTAND but people wanted to react, they decided to put a million-word posts in response to what I have written. Three very long posts buoyed up very quickly, and I don't see how they relate to my posts. A bit like being in the snake pit... look left, look right, you don't know where to look, there is danger by numbers. — god must be atheist
Epistemology is the rules/viewpoints on how we know things, not metaphysics. — Coben
In my experience of talking with scientists about philosophy, I have found that many times most scientists seem to look down on it like if it were just speculative non-conducive discussions about random thoughts that anyone can make up. — Shushi
As stated yours is a model of so-called Aristotelian science; i.e., observe and then make up a plausible account of what you have observed. To Francis Bacon is attributed the remark that science starts when nature is put to the question, made to answer questions put to her, rather than nature's being merely observed, to see what she voluntarily gives. Or maybe we're just saying the same thing with different emphasis. Scientists look for patterns, but usually not passively, but rather as revealed by experiment.Much of science is about observing the world and seeing patterns. — T Clark
Scientists look for patterns, but usually not passively, but rather as revealed by experiment. — tim wood
Well, if you want to include epistemology in metaphysics then it is completely and utterly true, without controversy, that science has metaphysics, which was my original assertion in this thread. It seemed like, though I could be wrong, he took associating metaphysics with science as religious. (I am not quite sure what was going on there, since he didn't quite respond to me). But if he is taking epistemology to be a part of metaphysics, I can't see how metaphysics could possibly be problematic when associated with science..Epistemology is often included in definitions of metaphysics. I checked once and it came out about 50/50. To me it seems clear that it belongs as part of metaphysics. I suggest again that you take a look at the Collingwood paper referenced by Tim Wood. — T Clark
It is probably more related to what Linus Torvalds quipped: "Talk is cheap. Show me the code." In that kind of context, Linus demands that you do something considered objectively "hard" in order to first gain respect.
For example, in the philosophy of engineering, they want you to first show why they should respect you as an engineer. Generally spoken, in the philosophy of X, they want you to show your real proficiency in X.
From there on, aptitude and knowledge of philosophy is considered impressive. Peers will respect you more as a practitioner in the field of X, if you have a deep understanding of the philosophy of X, and ultimately of general philosophy. Free-standing, general philosophy, however, is not much appreciated, because there is the impression that everybody can just spout whatever vague ideas, i.e. mere verbiage.
It is the same with sales and management. You cannot sell airplane repair services, if it is obvious that you have never held a screw driver in your hands, ever in your life. You cannot manage programmers, if they detect that you cannot write a line of code. These people will not accept you in those circumstances. They will simply not respect you. Still, if you can really do the work itself, and you are good at philosophy, then you will automatically rise to the top of your field. Thought leaders in any field are always good philosophers, and they typically work their way through the philosophy classics too, because that really helps.
People tend to learn things in the wrong order. Theory follows practice, and not the other way around. That is why you better get lots of work experience in your field first, before even getting a degree. The other way around will often make you sound like an arrogant prick who seeks to "skip the hard part". — alcontali
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
Also worth mentioning that the forum is (mostly) about physics. Makes sense to me that they might not know about things outside of their area of expertise, i.e. metaphysics. — TogetherTurtle
But then the problem is that these other scientists don't see you as one of them if you don't think within their paradigm, and so it becomes hard to be acknowledged and for your ideas to be considered by these peers, and so it's not necessarily the cream that rises to the top, rather it's a system that perpetuates itself while accepting little influence that it sees as coming from outside, and then the more complicated the theories within the paradigm are the harder it is to make the system evolve, and I submit that this is why fundamental physics has become pretty much stagnant for the past decades. — leo
Wikipedia, is well, wikipedia, but even so it casts some light on this.... — Coben
Metaphysics continues asking "why" where science leaves off.... — Wikipedia
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.