My assumption is that what Metaphysics originally set out to do was to discover what could be referred to as "objective reality". The methodology became much more open and, so, I was perhaps being unfair to the field.

How is a statement about the methodology "metaphysical"? Everything can be defined as being metaphysical, but I fail to see how I've made a metaphysical statement.

I hadn't realized you replied to me.

I've spoken a lot of what others have to gain, but what of us? I think that if we aren't just talking nonsense, then saving a world headed for destruction is payment enough for me, even if nobody knows. — TogetherTurtle

I think that a few people can't save the world if the vast majority isn't willing to wake up on how it is progressively destroying it. Sometimes the example of Gandhi is given to show that a single individual can change a lot of things, while being peaceful, and without money, but the reason Gandhi changed things is that the revolt was already latent within the Indian people, and he was the spark that ignited it. Whereas I see no such revolt within most people, rather they are content with the way things are, they are content with their comfort and technology and they trust science to solve their problems, there is no revolt to ignite, we are sleepwalking while destroying nature. They don't see a problem, because they believe whatever the problem science will come to the rescue, meanwhile they can just be mindless drones enjoying themselves in runaway consumerism. The world won't be saved if they don't wake up.

I too sometimes have an issue with taking money for things. I think this is something we need to get around. If you want to change anything, anywhere, you have to be able throw your weight around a bit. I think a good way to start justifying it to ourselves is by only using profit for the greater good. I've convinced myself that I don't need too much to live, so any profit I make is likely to go into an investment fund for compounding until later use. — TogetherTurtle

I actually think money is at the root of a lot of the problems we face, and that we won't change things if we don't question money. Money destroys relationships between humans and between humans and nature. Nature has lived without money for eons, but now human society prevents us from living without it. The land doesn't belong to all life, it belongs to a few people. If we want to use land or settle on land, we need first of all to have money, otherwise the self-proclaimed land owners force us out with the help of other humans called the law enforcers. To have money we have to work for the people who have money, and usually that involves helping grow an industry that contributes to destroying nature. So essentially money and the people who enforce it force us to perpetuate the very system that is destroying nature.

Replacing money with bartering wouldn't help. Bartering rests on the notion that "if you do this for me, I do this for you, otherwise I don't do this for you", rather than on a notion of "let's help ourselves and let's help others", so in bartering there is still the implicit idea that the value of a human being stems from the resources he has, which leads people to accumulate as much resources as possible, and then the few who own the most resources can enforce their ownership and force people to participate in their own system, and since it is the lust for power that got them there, their system too would likely involve seeing nature as a tool to master and to use rather than seeing it as their own habitat and as something to respect and cherish.

And unless people wake up to all that, that won't change and we'll just stay on our current course towards destroying life.

I think it unlikely that the basis of physics would be flawed if it was done so long ago by such different people and still stands. — TogetherTurtle

Newton's laws stood for several centuries until they were found to be flawed. I believe the foundations of electromagnetism and relativity and quantum mechanics are flawed, and all the modern theories are built on them. They work to some extent but that's it, and now we're in an impasse because questioning these foundations is frowned upon in the scientific community, aspiring physicists become professional physicists by spending years studying and mastering the content and application of these theories, their professional career becomes built on these foundations, they get funding for their research by working on developing the paradigm based on these foundations, they don't get published in professional research journals if they drift too far away from the status quo, so they have every incentive to not question these foundations. The paradigm doesn't change not because scientists of every generation question the foundations and agree that they are the best ones, but because they don't question these foundations, they grow up in a system that teaches them to accept them before they can become scientists.

I would have loved to make a living working on my own theories based on different foundations, but academia wouldn't give me the liberty to do that, and I haven't found people who would believe in me enough to be willing to fund me, so it's something I did in my spare time. But then I grew tired of it, I thought even if I dedicate myself to it 10 or 15 years and I succeed then what? We would have a theory that is simpler and explains more, but people still wouldn't understand why it took so long for such a theory to appear, the fundamental issues in academia and in the scientific community wouldn't be solved, that theory would become the new oppressive paradigm that people aren't allowed to question, and the fundamental issues in our society and in our relationship with nature wouldn't get solved either.

Even if I became famous and began writing on these issues, the world still probably wouldn't listen, because while people are willing to agree with a theory that makes predictions that are observed, they don't want to question their deeply held beliefs unrelated to that theory, they don't want to be told that they are responsible for where the world is going, and they don't want to be told that science won't save them. That's how the later writings of famous scientists get dismissed as the rants of old men who should have stuck to writing about their theory, when they say things that people do not want to hear.


That post is so long already and I have replied only to a little of what you said, I will reply to the rest later on.

And yet you compared the two to "apples and apple trees", so you seem to see some, er, relationship between them. What is this relationship? — Pattern-chaser

The reason I picked apple trees is because apples grow out of them. I guess you could say science grows up out of the philosophy of science. As I've said, another way to look at it is that science and the philosophy of science are both part of one thing. Like apples, apple trees, soil, rainfall, the farmer could all be seen as part of the system that grows apples.

How is a statement about the methodology "metaphysical"? Everything can be defined as being metaphysical, but I fail to see how I've made a metaphysical statement. — thewonder

What you wrote is:

You originally wrote:

the methodology does sort of assume that there is an abstract truth that is to be deigned somehow. — thewonder

The idea of abstract truth is a metaphysical concept. There is a good case to be made that the idea of an objective reality is not the only or necessarily the best way of looking at things. Even many scientists recognize that.

I'm sort of critiquing the metaphysical assumption that abstract truths exist. I'm not stating that there is an abstract truth which Metaphysics seeks to discover.

I'm sort of critiquing the metaphysical assumption that abstract truths exist. I'm not stating that there is an abstract truth which Metaphysics seeks to discover. — thewonder

Aren't we saying the same thing?

You claimed that I had made a metaphysical statement. I don't think that I did.

To me, proceeding from Platonic forms, Metaphysics seems to assume that there is an abstract realm where truth resides and sets out to discover what it is. It's like a substitution for the divine. I don't think that the abstract realm exists.

I don't think that the abstract realm exists. — thewonder

The statement that the abstract realm doesn't exist is a metaphysical statement.

I see what you're saying. I just don't think that Metaphysical methodology is any longer all that useful.

I just don't think that Metaphysical methodology is any longer all that useful. — thewonder

As you can probably see from my and other people's posts on this thread, there are a lot of us who disagree.

Well, you don't have to. I was just sort of tossing that out there, and don't necessarily care to get into an argument.

I honestly don't know all that much about Metaphysics. I've read some Pirsig who I do think is rather interesting. I also ostensibly, because I could not at all understand it, read François Laruelle's Introduction to Non-Philosophy (or something like that). I took some really great notes on that text which look like the records of a Physics experiement, but still have no idea as to what it was that he was on about.

You seem to be utilizing an appeal to the boundlessness of a theory which I think could be a logical fallacy of some sort. It's like an appeal to ideology. It'd be like suggesting that because Christianity is so widespread and nearly everything can be interpreted as a Christ metaphor that it is impossible not to believe in God. The antithetical negating claim is still concerned with the topic at hand, but does not prove for what it negates to be true by that it is still concerned with the topic at hand. There's some logic or Philosophy of Language that I don't know which could probably support this.

I was honestly just tossing that out there, though. The reason for the bias could be that Science has surpassed Metaphysics. The bias is still problematic, but it may not be wholly unfounded. I actually rather dislike the Scientific slant against Philosophy. I'm just arguing to the contrary.

I don't know. I only care so much to get into a dispute. I realistically don't know enough about this to level a decent argument.

I read a 2013 book by Jim Baggott called 'Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth'. '
— Wayfarer

Thanks for the reference. The first two or three chapters are available free on the web. Just the preface is worth the price of admission, so I bought the book. I look forward to reading it. — T Clark

Very good book - very difficult in places but overall first rate. I've also been reading Peter Woit's blog Not Even Wrong, and various pieces from Quanta and other sources - a great deal of it is over my head, but I find it interesting.

I don't think that the abstract realm exists. — thewonder

The interesting test case is the reality of numbers, laws, conventions, scientific principles, and so on. For instance, ask yourself the question 'does the number 7 exist?' 'Of course', you might say, 'you just referred to it, it's right there in the question.' But what's in the question is a symbol, and you could use others to communicate the same thing. So what is being communicated? Well, I'm not going to try and explain number, only to observe that it is something that can only be grasped by a mind capable of counting. So I think the nature of the existence of numbers - the ontology of number, if you like - is actually a clue to the meaning of metaphysics. And I bet when you try and conceive of 'the abstract realm', your mind instinctively tries to imagine where such a realm could be. But 'where' is the 'domain of natural numbers?' Obviously nowhere, and the use of the word 'domain' is in some sense metaphorical in this context; but nevertheless, there is such a domain, because some numbers are 'in' it, and others are 'outside' it.

There are a whole range of other realities whose reality we can now affirm: interest rates, mortgages, contracts, vows, national constitutions, penal codes and so on. Where do interest rates "exist"? Not in banks, or financial institutions. Are they real when we cannot touch them or see them? We all spend so much time worrying about them - are we worrying about nothing? In fact, I'm sure we all worry much more about interest rates than about the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson! Similarly, a contract is not just the piece of paper, but the meaning the paper embodies; likewise a national constitution or a penal code.

Once we break the stranglehold on our thinking by our animal extroversion, we can affirm the reality of our whole world of human meanings and values, of institutions, nations, finance and law, of human relationships and so on, without the necessity of seeing them as "just" something else lower down the chain of being yet to be determined. — Neil Ormerod

The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss.

metaphysics is difficult. If we look at wikipedia, and the Stanford dictionary of Philosophy, and so forth, we find many different descriptions of what metaphysics is, most of them unclear (IMO). About the only thing I am sure about is that metaphysics has nothing to do with physics. :smile:

Does metaphysics address "What is"? I don't know. I can only offer an example. Whether I am a brain in a vat, or one of the many other possibilities applies instead, is a question science cannot begin to address, because there is no evidence. None at all. So there is no grist for science's mill. Metaphysics allows us to consider such issues (and others too, of course). Not in the same way that science does, but that's the point. The two disciplines are complementary, with little or no overlap.

Then you refer to discovering "what actually exists", which confuses me. Do you mean to refer to Objective Reality (that which actually is, regardless of our beliefs, opinions, etc.)? If so, then I would suggest science cannot address that one either, because we have no knowing access to Objective Reality. Did you mean that, or were you intending to describe the apparent reality that our perception shows us pictures of, that science addresses as the space-time universe? — Pattern-chaser

>Does metaphysics address "What is"? I don't know.

Perhaps one way of understanding this distinction is to ask whether 'what is real' and 'what exists' are the same. Reality is much greater than what just exists, because it includes possibilities, meaning, and much more more.

Perhaps another interpretation is that 'what is' comprises not just 'things which exist' but the totality of things, which is, of course, changing in every instant, because everything is in motion, everything in nature is change. So 'what is' is actually always fleeting, because it is changing at every moment, while 'what exists' are just those things that we actually can know, measure, and talk about. We can pick them out, name them, and identify them. In this sense, reality transcends existence. In this understanding, 'what exists' is indeed what can be measured, ascertained, photographed, captured, and so on. But 'existence' itself is simply a momentary aspect of the totality - and the totality is what is real.

I think this relates to the original insight behind the Parmenides, which is the origin of metaphysics in the Western tradition. I'm not well-schooled in the Greek texts, but there's a couple of points that I think I can still make about it. The wikipedia entry on Parmenides avers that:

The goddess [that Parmenides is taken to meet 'on a chariot'] resides in a well-known mythological space: where Night and Day have their meeting place. Its essential character is that here all opposites are undivided, or one. He must learn all things, she tells him – both truth, which is certain, and human opinions, which are uncertain – for though one cannot rely on human opinions, they represent an aspect of the whole truth.

How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown. (B 8.20–22)

In any case, I think this points back to a radically different kind of understanding or mentality - that of the paradigmatic 'awakened sage', and towards the elusive understanding of non-dualism ('undivided, or one'). This is associated much more with Indian philosophy, but according to Thomas McEvilly's ground-breaking Shape of Ancient Thought, there was considerable mutual influence between the Greek and Indian sources (see https://vimeo.com/7078365).

Indeed, if dark matter was really there, the plenty of experiments on dark matter should have most likely detected it by now. — leo

I'm dubious about the whole idea, although of course, what do I know? But I'm convinced it will never be solved in my lifetime.

Beyond that, the question in science is rather: How did you test that? How did you take care of scientific controls? Has anybody else tested it again? These anti-spam measures neatly hark back to Popperian falsificationism, which in my impression, still rules as king over the epistemic domain of science. — alcontali

This isn't so much Popperian falsificationism as just empiricist principles that were around, more or less, since Bacon's time. Falsificationism is something more technical and specific - one analytical treatment out of many that were being developed starting from around the turn of the century in an attempt to formalize and precisify those widely shared ideas. Poper, Duhem, Hempel, Ramsey, Fisher, Neyman, etc., etc. - they weren't in disagreement about the general principles (except when they were trying to exaggerate their differences, as Popper in particular was apt to do) - they disagreed about analysis.

But while such analytical work still continues, I think the era of all-encompassing analytical programmes for science has been eclipsed over the last half-century by a more historical-sociological approach of Kuhn, Feyerabend, etc. that acknowledges science's messy, complex human nature. None of the simple analytical models that have been proposed proved to be a good universal fit for science's successes and failures. Instead, there are general, necessarily vague empiricist principles, and then there are many particular methodologies, protocols, techniques and know-hows that are being gradually developed and adjusted as we go along.

Sometimes the example of Gandhi is given to show that a single individual can change a lot of things, while being peaceful, and without money, but the reason Gandhi changed things is that the revolt was already latent within the Indian people, and he was the spark that ignited it. — leo

Well, I would hope I don't have to do it alone, or without money. At the very least, you and I agree that this could be a problem, so there are at least two.

They don't see a problem, because they believe whatever the problem science will come to the rescue, meanwhile they can just be mindless drones enjoying themselves in runaway consumerism. The world won't be saved if they don't wake up. — leo

Perhaps "waking people up" isn't the right approach. People get upset (specifically at the one who awoke them) when they're woken up.

People chase after their desires. If we want people to do something, there has to be something in it for them, likely in the immediate future.

I actually think money is at the root of a lot of the problems we face, and that we won't change things if we don't question money. Money destroys relationships between humans and between humans and nature. Nature has lived without money for eons, but now human society prevents us from living without it. The land doesn't belong to all life, it belongs to a few people. If we want to use land or settle on land, we need first of all to have money, otherwise the self-proclaimed land owners force us out with the help of other humans called the law enforcers. To have money we have to work for the people who have money, and usually that involves helping grow an industry that contributes to destroying nature. So essentially money and the people who enforce it force us to perpetuate the very system that is destroying nature. — leo

Yes, but what of the positives of money? Currency, at least in the modern era, is used as a certificate of work done. Essentially, unless obtained illegally, what you're saying when you buy groceries is "somehow, human society has justified that my work equals this food". It's the somehow that is the problem.

A fair society without money would be a bureaucratic nightmare. It would take an immense amount of work to track all of the work a person does, give that work a value, and then also value the items they wish to obtain. It would be that, 7 billion times over.

People pursue money for pleasure and comfort. It's that "something in it for them" especially "in the immediate future".

Replacing money with bartering wouldn't help. Bartering rests on the notion that "if you do this for me, I do this for you, otherwise I don't do this for you", rather than on a notion of "let's help ourselves and let's help others", so in bartering there is still the implicit idea that the value of a human being stems from the resources he has, which leads people to accumulate as much resources as possible, and then the few who own the most resources can enforce their ownership and force people to participate in their own system, and since it is the lust for power that got them there, their system too would likely involve seeing nature as a tool to master and to use rather than seeing it as their own habitat and as something to respect and cherish. — leo

What if we could develop a system in which money was always made from benefiting the whole? What benefits the whole would be decided on by looking at scientific evidence as well as the goal as a whole being pleasure for all.

Of course, we need unbiased science and unbiased decision making. That seems to be the problem.

Newton's laws stood for several centuries until they were found to be flawed. I believe the foundations of electromagnetism and relativity and quantum mechanics are flawed, and all the modern theories are built on them. They work to some extent but that's it, and now we're in an impasse because questioning these foundations is frowned upon in the scientific community, aspiring physicists become professional physicists by spending years studying and mastering the content and application of these theories, their professional career becomes built on these foundations, they get funding for their research by working on developing the paradigm based on these foundations, they don't get published in professional research journals if they drift too far away from the status quo, so they have every incentive to not question these foundations. The paradigm doesn't change not because scientists of every generation question the foundations and agree that they are the best ones, but because they don't question these foundations, they grow up in a system that teaches them to accept them before they can become scientists. — leo

I agree mostly. Especially quantum physics seems to be flawed. I was referring more to basic things like how matter changes from gas to liquid to solid. Stuff that we've generally understood pretty well for thousands of years.

I would have loved to make a living working on my own theories based on different foundations, but academia wouldn't give me the liberty to do that, and I haven't found people who would believe in me enough to be willing to fund me, so it's something I did in my spare time. But then I grew tired of it, I thought even if I dedicate myself to it 10 or 15 years and I succeed then what? We would have a theory that is simpler and explains more, but people still wouldn't understand why it took so long for such a theory to appear, the fundamental issues in academia and in the scientific community wouldn't be solved, that theory would become the new oppressive paradigm that people aren't allowed to question, and the fundamental issues in our society and in our relationship with nature wouldn't get solved either. — leo

Whatever you would have come up with certainly would have been interesting. Again though, I think it's interesting how if there was money in it, you would have been able to conduct your research. It might be a bit against your nature, but if you still want to do that work, you would have to find a way to monetize it.

Even if I became famous and began writing on these issues, the world still probably wouldn't listen, because while people are willing to agree with a theory that makes predictions that are observed, they don't want to question their deeply held beliefs unrelated to that theory, they don't want to be told that they are responsible for where the world is going, and they don't want to be told that science won't save them. That's how the later writings of famous scientists get dismissed as the rants of old men who should have stuck to writing about their theory, when they say things that people do not want to hear. — leo

I don't think it's your fault people don't listen, but I don't think it's the people's fault either

We all see such a small amount of this universe. We are forced to make real decisions based on a fantasy we make up based on this small amount of observation. Everyone's vision is too narrow, and they are forced to walk only where they can see. If we could remedy that, I think most human problems would disappear.

Somebody in this thread said that part of the reason philosophy is looked down on by scientists is that the philosophers don't do or understand science. — T Clark

This situation is changing though. Just as science is no longer the province of gentlemen dilettantes, as it was until about the mid-19th century, philosophy is catching up and becoming more professional and specialized. It is not uncommon now for philosophers of science to have an honest-to-goodness science degree. And while such a formal degree is not a prerequisite for doing good philosophy, I believe that only those philosophers who demonstrate a decent grasp of their subject deserve to be taken seriously.

We should turn that around too, make people understand that so-called scientists who don't understand the intellectual underpinnings of what they do are just technicians. — T Clark

Some people here tend to arrogantly overestimate their understanding of science and scientific process and underestimate scientists' intellectual abilities. It is easy enough to find examples of uninspired or incompetent science (provided that you have the competence to judge!) just as it is easy to find examples of uninspired or incompetent carpentry, and for pretty much the same reason: when something is so ubiquitous, it can't all be excellent. (And how much excellence does hammering a nail require, anyway? A lot of research is basically hammering nails.) But there have always been outstanding intellectuals working in science, who could give the best of philosophers a run for their money, even if they didn't spend much time poring over their Aristotle and Kant. Frankly, the conceptual riches that have opened up in science and mathematics over the last 200 years make a lot of philosophy look shallow and insignificant in comparison.

I am embarrassed for those "philosophers" (not talking about you, T Clark) - nitwits and crackpots who come here to sneer condescendingly at the Borns and the Feynmans - those benighted bunglers! If only they listened to our sophomoric insights, science wouldn't have been in such a hot mess that it is nowadays! If any self-respecting scientist happened upon this forum, she would tell them where they can stuff their philosophy - and would be absolutely right. Philosophers need to step up their own game if they want to be relevant.

Well, I would hope I don't have to do it alone, or without money. At the very least, you and I agree that this could be a problem, so there are at least two. — TogetherTurtle

Yes, even more than two, but still so few. Though it surely would help if those who agree there is a problem would think together about how to solve it. I'm used to thinking about those things on my own, but when we're all alone some problems appear as insurmountable, while they don't appear that way when we face them together.

Perhaps "waking people up" isn't the right approach. People get upset (specifically at the one who awoke them) when they're woken up.

People chase after their desires. If we want people to do something, there has to be something in it for them, likely in the immediate future. — TogetherTurtle

I suppose it depends if they are woken up from a beautiful dream or from a nightmare. Avoiding the destruction of nature and life would benefit them too, but if they want to blind themselves to the deforestation and destruction of the ecosystem and of other species, or if they believe that anyway science will come to save the day, then they don't care.

Children would be more willing to listen, but then education should be partly focused on making them aware of these problems, rather than shaping them to be efficient cogs in the very system that created and aggravates these problems.

Yes, but what of the positives of money? Currency, at least in the modern era, is used as a certificate of work done. Essentially, unless obtained illegally, what you're saying when you buy groceries is "somehow, human society has justified that my work equals this food". It's the somehow that is the problem.

A fair society without money would be a bureaucratic nightmare. It would take an immense amount of work to track all of the work a person does, give that work a value, and then also value the items they wish to obtain. It would be that, 7 billion times over. — TogetherTurtle

You're reasoning within the paradigm of money there. Why do we need certificates of work done? As if work done was necessarily a good thing. We have plenty of people who make a lot of money while contributing by their work to make the lives of many people worse, while making this world a worst place to live in, they have a certificate that says they have done a huge amount of work, so supposedly they have contributed a lot to society and deserve to be greatly rewarded for it, while they got that money easily by scamming people or by making people addicted to something that destroys them or while destroying an ecosystem. And the very value of their money comes from all the people who are forced to participate in this system, who are forced to need money to get anything.

While on the other hand plenty of people who work tirelessly to help others, to make this world a better place to live in, do not make any money while doing it, they have no certificate of work done, as if they had contributed nothing to society.

You see the problem? But it's not a problem that can be solved by tweaking some things about money or how we use it, it's systemic.

The value of what an individual does for others is not objective, it's subjective. Some people bring tremendous value to other people who have little or no money, so they don't get money from it, and so by the metric of money they have done nothing of value, but the people who have been helped would strongly disagree. While if you carry out a criminal act for some powerful individual, you bring a little positive value to that individual, you bring a lot of negative value to potentially many people, and yet you get a lot of money, and then society values highly what you have done.

That system is rotten. Remove money and bartering and we have a system where people work for themselves and bring value to themselves, to the people they love and to the people they want to help. In such a system society wouldn't reward you for destroying the lives of other people, and you wouldn't be forced to contribute to a system that destroys life and nature. That doesn't mean we would automatically live in a utopia where people all love one another, but at least we could stop the destruction of nature and solve the problems that stem from forcing people to need money.

What if we could develop a system in which money was always made from benefiting the whole? What benefits the whole would be decided on by looking at scientific evidence as well as the goal as a whole being pleasure for all. — TogetherTurtle

I really don't see how you could do that. Once people are forced to need money for anything by the few people who have the most of it, money doesn't benefit the whole, because usually those who have the most power have a lust for power, and that lust for power transcends their desire to benefit the whole (which they usually don't have, they simply care about benefitting themselves).

Again though, I think it's interesting how if there was money in it, you would have been able to conduct your research. — TogetherTurtle

I guessed you would pick up on that. It's not that I would do it for money, nor that it couldn't be done if money didn't exist, it's that I need to eat and a place to live and some freedom in order to conduct that research, and in a world ruled by money it is money that allows to get that. If I go build a shack somewhere I will get kicked out by the land owners and those who enforce that ownership. In a world without money, people who believe in me could provide me with food and shelter and the tools to conduct that research. In this money world people could do that too, but they would need to have money themselves, which is why I referred to funding.

In a world without money I could build my own place and get my own food, and conduct my research the rest of the time without needing anyone. And then if people believed in me they could help me get food or bring me food so that I could focus on the research. No need for money.

The reason I picked apple trees is because apples grow out of them. I guess you could say science grows up out of the philosophy of science. As I've said, another way to look at it is that science and the philosophy of science are both part of one thing. Like apples, apple trees, soil, rainfall, the farmer could all be seen as part of the system that grows apples. — T Clark

But I wasn't talking about science and the philosophy of science, I was talking about science and metaphysics. I thought we all were.... :chin: I don't see how science could 'take over' from metaphysics any more than I can see how cage-fighting could 'take over' from wallpaper. They aren't the same thing, and they don't address the same issues. They seem to me to be complementary. :chin:

If any self-respecting scientist happened upon this forum, she would tell them where they can stuff their philosophy - and would be absolutely right. — SophistiCat

Well I did maths, physics and chemistry at A level, I have a degree in Electronics, and a 40-year career in applied science (hardware and software design). I have had a lifetime interest in philosophy too, but no academic education or qualifications in that area.

I am a "self-respecting scientist". :up:

From my perspective, what you say is mistaken. Any area with a mental component has philosophy somewhere in its foundations, if you grub around enough to find it. How could it possibly be otherwise? :chin:

From my perspective, what you say is mistaken. Any area with a mental component has philosophy somewhere in its foundations, if you grub around enough to find it. How could it possibly be otherwise? — Pattern-chaser

Did you read just this last sentence? I don't deny the value of philosophy, nor even its applicability to science.

If any self-respecting scientist happened upon this forum, she would tell them where they can stuff their philosophy - and would be absolutely right. — SophistiCat

I don't deny the value of philosophy, nor even its applicability to science. — SophistiCat

You seem to be contradicting yourself. :chin:

But I wasn't talking about science and the philosophy of science, I was talking about science and metaphysics. I thought we all were.... :chin: I don't see how science could 'take over' from metaphysics any more than I can see how cage-fighting could 'take over' from wallpaper. They aren't the same thing, and they don't address the same issues. They seem to me to be complementary. — Pattern-chaser

I was trying to do two things 1) Avoid the confusion I may have caused in the past by lumping epistemology in with metaphysics. That's why I called it philosophy of science rather than metaphysics. 2) Be clear about what I include as part of science and what I don't. There's a lot to philosophy, a lot to metaphysics. Not all of it has to do with science. I think the philosophy of science belongs with science, but not morals, aesthetics, politics, etc.

That's why I called it philosophy of science rather than metaphysics. — T Clark

I still think these two subjects, while both are 'philosophy', are quite distinct. The philosophy of science belongs with science, I agree. It considers the hows, whys and wherefores of the theory and practice of science. The only other place for the philosophy of science, if it doesn't belong in the science cupboard, is in the philosophy cupboard. :wink:

Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. — Wikipedia

Well, it seems Wikipedia disagrees with me, and that there is some overlap between metaphysics and the philosophy of science. But the example they quote makes it fairly clear that the subjects are mostly distinct, but have some overlap in the consideration of science and truth, and other similar areas. Metaphysics only overlaps in their example when the philosophy of science steers away from the scientific mainstream toward peripheral (to it) areas like truth.

But I do believe that there is much more to metaphysics than truth. The nature of reality - that which actually is - is something only metaphysics can address. Science certainly can't. It confines itself - maybe sensibly? :wink: - to the apparent reality that our senses show us pictures of. It's the only 'reality' to which we have direct access, so we're stuck with it. One the one hand, common sense says that we should just stick with the only thing we have. On the other, some philosophers are fascinated by the possibility that the reality we see and hear is not what actually is. Science cannot address this. After all, there's no evidence, which disables just about every method and technique science can bring to bear.

That's not a failing of science, but only a recognition that no tool, however powerful, can address all problems. But that's not what this topic is really about. From the OP:

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

My answer to this is "yes", there are some scientists who are dismissive of philosophy, and indeed everything except science. They are mistakenly convinced that science is the One and Only Tool worthy of intellectual inquiry. These poor unfortunates are indeed dismissive of philosophy.

You're reasoning within the paradigm of money there. Why do we need certificates of work done? — leo

"Work done" refers to doing what society believes is work. In theory, everyone who contributes to society should get something out. However, it's entirely up to us to decide our goals and how we should reach them.

People don't like giving away their precious goods for less than they're worth. If they can abuse the system to be paid more than they're worth, they will, but almost nobody on the planet is ok with the opposite, getting less than they're worth.

You're right that the system is flawed, for sure, but the flaw begins in us. I think it would be wise to instead of completely abandon it, use the very problems to our own advantage.

Money is the carrot on a stick that keeps people moving. If you want someone to do something, money is probably going to be involved.

I think if you want change, your only hope is to monetize it. Even if it's an immediate life or death situation and everyone on Earth will die in two days, nobody will care unless they can make some cash.

There is no inherent wrongdoing in an action, it's the effects of the action that can be considered good or bad. If bashing people in the skull made them smarter, it would be recommended, but it doesn't, and so it's not. There is nothing morally wrong with the act of buying Nike shoes at low prices, the problem lies in the effects of that action, the effect being that child factory workers in the third world have to be paid close to nothing.

While if you carry out a criminal act for some powerful individual, you bring a little positive value to that individual, you bring a lot of negative value to potentially many people, and yet you get a lot of money, and then society values highly what you have done. — leo

And so comes the grand miscalculation. It's my belief that nobody does evil things on purpose. It's impossible to see everything and act accordingly, and so sometimes people make mistakes, and people don't like to admit their mistakes, even to themselves. When this "powerful individual" asks you to commit a crime, they're doing so because they genuinely think that keeping themselves in power is for the greater good. Whether they're wrong or not is entirely another matter, as it's not something that they or even their detractors can even really know. You would have to have the entire picture to always do the right thing.

I really don't see how you could do that. Once people are forced to need money for anything by the few people who have the most of it, money doesn't benefit the whole, because usually those who have the most power have a lust for power, and that lust for power transcends their desire to benefit the whole (which they usually don't have, they simply care about benefitting themselves). — leo

There would need to be someone who saw everything, believed that the benefit of all people was a worthwhile goal, and could keep everyone in check. God, essentially. Regardless of anyone's religious beliefs, I don't think one is doing any of this.

In a world without money I could build my own place and get my own food, and conduct my research the rest of the time without needing anyone. And then if people believed in me they could help me get food or bring me food so that I could focus on the research. No need for money. — leo

Would you have time for research when you're too busy farming, preserving, or hunting depending on where you build your shack? Civilization exists to solve that very problem. If you want to do this work, you'll absolutely have to rely on others.

People don't like giving away their precious goods for less than they're worth. If they can abuse the system to be paid more than they're worth, they will, but almost nobody on the planet is ok with the opposite, getting less than they're worth.

Money is the carrot on a stick that keeps people moving. If you want someone to do something, money is probably going to be involved. — TogetherTurtle

Come on, nature has been working without money for eons, people have lived without money for eons, it's not money that makes people move no, but in this ugly society it is, because of the few in power who force people to need money to get what they need, and indeed who have implemented it in a way that it serves as a carrot on a stick.

The current system is abused left and right in horrible ways and there is nothing you can do about it. The system isn't made to be efficient, it's made in such a way that the majority remains poor, so that they have to work hard every day, so that their overlords can enjoy the fruit of their labor, while most people earn just enough to get shelter and food and a tiny bit of fun to keep them motivated. Most people have to earn just enough to be slaves as efficient as possible, if they earn too much they work less and then money becomes less effective as a tool of control, while if they earn too little at some point it becomes unbearable for them and they revolt against their overlords. The system is like that by design, realize that.

If money was efficient it wouldn't take 30 years to pay for a house, because it sure as hell wouldn't take 30 years to learn how to build a house and to build one.

I find disgusting the very notion of forcing people to do something, I don't want to force people to wake up, I want to change what's preventing them from waking up.

It's my belief that nobody does evil things on purpose. It's impossible to see everything and act accordingly, and so sometimes people make mistakes, and people don't like to admit their mistakes, even to themselves. When this "powerful individual" asks you to commit a crime, they're doing so because they genuinely think that keeping themselves in power is for the greater good. — TogetherTurtle

I used to be naive like that. What some people see as the greater good is serving the Devil, literally, they don't worship God they worship Satan. Tyrants don't want the greater good, they care about themselves. People who manipulate others to get what they need do not care about others, they care about themselves. People who want the population to remain slaves do not care about the greater good, they only care that the slaves remain efficient slaves and don't want to revolt. There are actually plenty of people who are focused on themselves and not on a greater good.

We can empathize with them if we want by saying that they do that out of fear, that they need power because they fear for their life if they don't have that power, but it doesn't change the underlying fact that they don't care about the greater good. Not by mistake, by design.

Would you have time for research when you're too busy farming, preserving, or hunting depending on where you build your shack? Civilization exists to solve that very problem. If you want to do this work, you'll absolutely have to rely on others. — TogetherTurtle

People had the time to paint in the Lascaux Cave 17,000 years ago, I guess they had some free time back then, they weren't constantly farming or hunting. Other animals don't spend all their waking hours hunting for food. And somehow we're supposed to believe that without money we would never have any free time? Yea, no.

I would have free time on my own, and I would have more free time if some other people believed in me and brought me food.

I was watching a documentary the other day about Amazonian people who get forced out of the forest so some big foreign companies can come destroy it and exploit its resources. In compensation these people were given small houses in a small city nearby, in essence they were forced into civilization. They were interviewed, and what did they say about it? That they much preferred the life in the forest, there they only had to hunt for a little while to get food, while in civilization they have to work all day long to get money to get food. And they said that in civilization there is constant stress, dangers everywhere, they have to watch out for cars and motorcycles on the road, people have guns, while life in the forest was much simpler and more peaceful, there they were connected to nature.

I don't see modern civilization as a solution, I see it as the problem.

I still think these two subjects, while both are 'philosophy', are quite distinct. — Pattern-chaser

Well, if Wikipedia disagrees with you, you must be wrong. More importantly, I disagree with you.

I don't really care what we call it. There are intellectual underpinnings to science I would typically consider as part of philosophy. Just in the course of this thread, I've started convincing myself that that distinction is not useful one.

I haven't convinced you with my best argument. I don't have anywhere else to go. I'll fall back on an unimpeachable source - Because Wikipedia says so.

Newton's laws stood for several centuries until they were found to be flawed. — leo

They are not flawed in the sense you are describing. It has been acknowledged that they are not applicable in some situations, e.g. when the speed of a phenomenon is greater than about 10% of the speed of light, i.e. phenomena at human scale. Engineering uses Newton's laws almost exclusively because it's right, i.e. it works.

Indeed, if dark matter was really there, the plenty of experiments on dark matter should have most likely detected it by now. — leo

You and I have been back and forth on this issue previously. Dark matter has been detected. It was detected by observing the gravitational behavior of the visible universe. Do you think I have to hold it in my hand or lick it to see how it tastes before there is evidence. Just about everything we know of that is outside human scale we know indirectly, including dark matter.

I think you have misunderstood what "know" and "evidence" mean.

Come on, nature has been working without money for eons, people have lived without money for eons, it's not money that makes people move no, but in this ugly society it is, because of the few in power who force people to need money to get what they need, and indeed who have implemented it in a way that it serves as a carrot on a stick. — leo

Money is simply a tool used to represent value. Things of value exist in nature. Food, shelter, comfort, all of these things can be found in nature. We distribute these according to money. In nature, all of these are also unevenly distributed. Your problem with money is just the same problem we would have without money.

The current system is abused left and right in horrible ways and there is nothing you can do about it. The system isn't made to be efficient, it's made in such a way that the majority remains poor, so that they have to work hard every day, so that their overlords can enjoy the fruit of their labor, while most people earn just enough to get shelter and food and a tiny bit of fun to keep them motivated. Most people have to earn just enough to be slaves as efficient as possible, if they earn too much they work less and then money becomes less effective as a tool of control, while if they earn too little at some point it becomes unbearable for them and they revolt against their overlords. The system is like that by design, realize that. — leo

Originally, the system is built by those people who revolt. Therefore, it's a flaw in that very system designed originally for efficiency that is our problem. If we fix that problem, we have no problem.

If money was efficient it wouldn't take 30 years to pay for a house, because it sure as hell wouldn't take 30 years to learn how to build a house and to build one. — leo

I never said it was. I said it could be.

I find disgusting the very notion of forcing people to do something, I don't want to force people to wake up, I want to change what's preventing them from waking up. — leo

And in changing whatever is keeping them asleep, you force them to wake up. There is no wrongdoing in the action, only in the effects. Of course, I don't even think that's necessarily a bad thing.

I used to be naive like that. What some people see as the greater good is serving the Devil, literally, they don't worship God they worship Satan. Tyrants don't want the greater good, they care about themselves. — leo

My point was that they literally believe that the greater good is serving themselves.

I think world leaders believe that people are foolish without their guidance, and so they attempt to stay in power. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant, because years of skewing the truth has skewed their world view. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, whether they're yours or someone else's.

People had the time to paint in the Lascaux Cave 17,000 years ago, I guess they had some free time back then, they weren't constantly farming or hunting. — leo

Rome wasn't built in a day, and I assure you those cave paintings weren't painted in a day either. That was likely the product of multiple lifetimes of free time.

Other animals don't spend all their waking hours hunting for food. And somehow we're supposed to believe that without money we would never have any free time? Yea, no. — leo

You're right, they spend that time raising young, protecting their territory, and resting due to the immense stress that doing these things puts on any animals body. I wouldn't consider recovering from intense physical activity free time.

Some believe that it's cruel to keep animals in zoos because they can't "roam free". In reality, animals stay in a relatively small area their entire lives. Even birds stick to their migration paths.

Perhaps you see primitivism as some sort of escape to freedom. You would be wrong. Without the luxuries of civilization, life is only harder, more brutish, and much shorter.

Even if you are enslaved by corporate overlords, the alternative is even more suffering. I think it more reasonable to break a broken system if that system could be beneficial.

I would have free time on my own, and I would have more free time if some other people believed in me and brought me food. — leo

And why would people believe in you, when it is only in our nature to believe things that benefit us? Nobody ever gets the benefit of the doubt for this reason.

I was watching a documentary the other day about Amazonian people who get forced out of the forest so some big foreign companies can come destroy it and exploit its resources. In compensation these people were given small houses in a small city nearby, in essence they were forced into civilization. They were interviewed, and what did they say about it? That they much preferred the life in the forest, there they only had to hunt for a little while to get food, while in civilization they have to work all day long to get money to get food. And they said that in civilization there is constant stress, dangers everywhere, they have to watch out for cars and motorcycles on the road, people have guns, while life in the forest was much simpler and more peaceful, there they were connected to nature. — leo

Imagine living in the city your whole life, and then being forced into the wilderness. How stressful would it be to not know which berries will kill you? How stressful would it be to encounter even a small animal without a means to protect yourself? How stressful would it for your shelter to collapse because you didn't know how to build a sturdy one?

People operate best when they are in familiar surroundings. People fear difference. That is the source of their fear.

Furthermore, I would add that these Amazonians did have a sort of civilization. Surely they organized their labor, some going to hunt while others cooked, no? That organization is the basis of civilization.

I don't see modern civilization as a solution, I see it as the problem. — leo

Problems are caused when things are broken. The solution to eating healthy isn't not eating, it's eating the correct foods.

If you really believe you can live on your own somewhere, I think you should try it. There is unused land out there that no one checks on. In fact, I think in Alaska the government still just gives it out. If you make it out there and make any scientific progress, I would like to know. Well, if you can connect to the internet.

They are not flawed in the sense you are describing. It has been acknowledged that they are not applicable in some situations, e.g. when the speed of a phenomenon is greater than about 10% of the speed of light, i.e. phenomena at human scale. Engineering uses Newton's laws almost exclusively because it works and because it's right. — T Clark

If you won't believe me but you will believe Wikipedia, maybe you will believe the Nobel laureate in physics Frank Wilczek, he says the same stuff as me, somehow when I say something it's not true but when Nobel laureates say it it's true, somehow appeals to authority is what serves as convincing arguments on this forum, so there you go:

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/%20Whence_cshock.pdf

You and I have been back and forth on this issue previously. Dark matter has been detected. It was detected by observing the gravitational behavior of the visible universe. Do you think I have to hold it in my hand or lick it to see how it tastes before there is evidence. Just about everything we know of that is outside human scale we know indirectly, including dark matter. — T Clark

We've been back and forth but you still haven't got it. Seeing that observations do not match Einstein's general relativity is not detecting dark matter, it is assuming that the difference between observation and theory is due to invisible stuff rather than due to the theory being flawed. "But the theory is so well-tested!", yea plenty of well-tested theories were found to be flawed and replaced by other ones. Dozens of experiments have failed to detect dark matter, they're doing these experiments because they are looking for independent evidence for dark matter, because they have a tiny bit of integrity left, otherwise every time a theory doesn't work we could just invoke invisible stuff to make it work again, no need for Einstein if we invoke invisible stuff Newton's gravitation works just fine!

If you won't believe me but you will believe Wikipedia, maybe you will believe the Nobel laureate in physics Frank Wilczek, he says the same stuff as me, somehow when I say something it's not true but when Nobel laureates say it it's true, somehow appeals to authority is what serves as convincing arguments on this forum, so there you go: — leo

I assume we are talking about the issue with Newton's Laws. It's fine to give references to smart people who are familiar with the subject. I can find plenty of quotes to support my position. I am also capable of seeing for myself. This isn't really a matter of fact. It's a matter of the definition of the word "flawed."

We've been back and forth but you still haven't got it. — leo

As I stated the last time we had this discussion, I've tried my best arguments and failed to convince you of my position. I don't see any reason to continue.