Ask Nagase — 180 Proof
First, I would like to dispute that "fallibilism" is any better criteria of significance than verificationism, or even that it is mainstream today. It is true that most popular accounts of the scientific method mention Popper in this regard, but these accounts do not reflect mainstream thinking in the philosophy of science. If anything, mainstream philosophy of science today has largely abandoned the search for criteria of demarcation ... — Nagase
So the idea that the whole movement foundered because of an obvious logical inconsistency is just bizarre (and even more bizarre when one considers that its members were all logical proficient). — Nagase
Metaphysics will never die. — Corvus
Why is it fortunate? — Corvus
I'm one who questions the value of metaphysics generally. It isn't clear to me that it consists of anything but speculation, and it seems speculation to no effect. — Ciceronianus
The comment was more a riposte to the claim that "Metaphysics will never die" than anything else. I'm one who questions the value of metaphysics generally. It isn't clear to me that it consists of anything but speculation, and it seems speculation to no effect. There's nothing wrong with speculation to no effect in itself, of course, but the fact that it may always take place and thereby never "die" doesn't strike me as something of note, or something to be celebrated or to take pride in. And the fact metaphysicians will, like all of us, die at least provides a certainty and reliability otherwise lacking in metaphysics. — Ciceronianus
Science, as posted by 180 Proof, is metaphysics that works (generally). I agree with that, while of course others may disagree. Religion is another form of metaphysics, and some think it works and others disagree. What seems certain to me is that those that succeed value life, and people, and other species, and knowledge, and freedom, while those who fail value war, or obscurantism, or hatred, for instance. So there are differences between different metaphysical speculations, and there are consequences. — Olivier5
It strikes me that metaphysics, though it may purport to explain (or question) why science or other things "work", doesn't "work" itself. Merely to claim that other things like science or religion "work" provides no support for metaphysics, though. — Ciceronianus
I'd have thought that metaphysics starts from the assumption that all the physics is settled, so there are no speculations to deal with. — bongo fury
It strikes me that metaphysics, though it may purport to explain (or question) why science or other things "work", doesn't "work" itself. Merely to claim that other things like science or religion "work" provides no support for metaphysics, though. — Ciceronianus
Science, as posted by 180 Proof, is metaphysics that works (generally). I agree with that, while of course others may disagree. — Olivier5
science doesn’t have a single definition , it is a historical development with a changing understanding of itself, undergirded by a changing metaphysical outlook — Joshs
The ‘meta’ is the formal synthetic framework which organizes the understanding of ‘physis’ (nature). — Joshs
It need make no claims for a particular content of science being settled or unsettled. — Joshs
As far as its speculative role, this term became fashionable after Hegel. — Joshs
His dialectic was interpreted as explaining the movement of natural and cultural history without recourse to empirical evidence. — Joshs
Science is more likely to be explained in sociological than metaphysical terms nowadays — Banno
The ‘meta’ is the formal synthetic framework which organizes the understanding of ‘physis’ (nature).
— Joshs
If that's an is, and not an ought to be, then... is, since when? — bongo fury
His dialectic was interpreted as explaining the movement of natural and cultural history without recourse to empirical evidence.
— Joshs
Don't understand. — bongo fury
the point was that a certain type of metaphysics underwrite science, which you seem to agree with. — Olivier5
we have at least three distinct metaphysical eras ( and we could divide them up into many more) that accompanies the history of science from the 1600’s to today. — Joshs
Since the Greeks? — Joshs
Speculative dialectics deservedly got a bad rep when... — Joshs
wasn't part of an insult? — bongo fury
As far as its speculative role, this term became fashionable after Hegel.
— Joshs
Ah! Interesting, :party: thanks. Any examples? — bongo fury
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.