Well, they are pretty related, even though people specialize in one field or another. You can't do epistemology without a world, and a world makes no sense without epistemology.

Another question altogether is if "metaphysics" is even possible without a heavy epistemological component. I don't think it is anymore.

Comes from Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle in particular. Questions of what can we know and how can we know it, but asked outside the strict empiricist framework that is nowadays assumed.

Why is there a subdiscipline of philosophy where Metaphysics and Epistemology grouped together? — Shawn

Whatever the specific reason that the forum decided to do that, if you look up various definitions of "metaphysics," they include epistemology about half the time. I think it is generally understood that they are closely related. I go further myself. I think separating the study of the nature of things from the study of how we know the nature of things is wrong-headed. They are really the same thing.

Epistemology is more of a step by step thought process understanding. But Shouldn't we understand the reaction of what is learn? Like a chain reaction. Also knowledge cause an experience reaction that cascades to an emotional reaction.

How subconsciously we reject information based on how it makes us feel. And you are not aware that you are rejecting what you are being taught.

Imagine a piece of information to be true.

But that info make your sad and depress and you don't like it. It just make you feel "iky"

Your conscious mind will rationalize it as true but your subconscious will say "Hell no this is BS!" and will go out an find data that will contradict that to make you feel better again.

And all this will happen without you knowing it. Is almost automatic.

If your conscious mind is "Albert Einstein" your Subconscious is "Bob Ross"

You can't do epistemology without a world, and a world makes no sense without epistemology. — Manuel

I don't know what to make of this. It seems profound and succinct.

What do you think about this, @unenlightened?

Kind of quizzical about what you think hereabouts, @Banno?

It seems that if we warrant that Manuel said, then we all ought to be in agreement about the World, simple? And yet, so much disagreement about so many things.

Thanks.

*The author accepts no liability from the comments and corrections that henceforth will come from Unenlightened and Banno"

I think you can mine your statement you made for a lot of information.

Why is there so much disagreement about Metaphysics if we all have the same or roughly equivalent epistemological concerns or knowledge about it*?

*it, being the World.

Ah, always with the easy questions with you eh? :sweat:

It's difficult to pin down. We may have similar epistemological concerns in terms of truth, reliability, fallibilism, etc. But we radically disagree on what this knowledge amounts to. Is this knowledge only ideal, that is, does information we get from the world solely mental? If so, how do mental things relate to non-mental things? If science tells us about the mind-independent world, where does that leave our "folk psychological" "manifest image"?

If only people who actually do quantum physics understand it in any detail at all, should we even be able to talk about it at all, being that most of us aren't experts? How can human centric-knowledge be capable of applying to the world at all? Is there any evolutionary advantage to being able to do science as opposed to not?

And on and on and on.

we all ought to be in agreement about the World, simple? — Shawn

We are, overwhelmingly.

But we spend much more time on the little bits bout which we disagree.

Yes, very difficult questions. I suppose one can boil it down to psychology, no?

Why is that?

Methinks the relation between metaphysics and epistemology has all to do with the correspondence theory of truth, the dominant idea on what truth is.

Epistemology despite attempts to restrict its scope with logic seems rather indifferent to how it is that we acquire truths - logic (rationality) isn't the only game in town.

That's my two bitcoins worth.

In principle it makes sense to put together the branch of philosophy that tries to understand nature of things with the one that tells you what can be known, etc. But nowadays this is better done by scientists than philosophers.

If only people who actually do quantum physics understand it in any detail at all, should we even be able to talk about it at all, being that most of us aren't experts? How can human centric-knowledge be capable of applying to the world at all? Is there any evolutionary advantage to being able to do science as opposed to not? — Manuel

I agree Manuel. Physicians know already very profound facts and laws of nature that go beyond any philosopher's intuition. "Physics" has overwhelmed "Metaphysics" and no human intuition can add any value to the understanding of reality without a good understanding of present physics.
Epistemology is still interesting as much as it connects with philosophy of language and cognitivism...

What is there?
How do you know?
What ought we do about it?
what does it mean?

I see philosophy as entangled questions that one cannot tackle one by one in a sensible order. They all arise at once as one finds oneself up a certain creek without the standard means of propulsion.

Philosophy begins in the middle of the muddle of life, and efforts to order the topic are all also questionable. But I would say they are relatively unimportant questions.

I'm not sure I know what metaphysics is, and that is a very common confusion that might explain psychologically why it goes well with epistemology, in a big bucket of 'dunno'.

What is the relation between the two? — Shawn

The overwhelming majority of professional philosophers today do not hold that there is a significant difference between metaphysics and epistemology, and teach the subjects to that belief. Therefore on an amateur and student forum one should not expect discussions of metaphysics as first philosophy, as prior to epistemology and logic, to happen. That would require too much independent deep thought.

Metaphysics as understood before Aristotle, sufficiently documented in pre-Aristotelian literature, is almost completely unappreciated except as archaeological curiosity. Shamefully, it is written off by current dogmatic academic analytic 20th Century practice.

Edit: ooops, The first sentence is a brainfart. It's metaphysics and ontology that are melded and used interchangeably. Then epistemology is what it is.

Historical considerations aside, in so far as epistemology concerns interpreting (our world) by how (we) 'connect-its-dots' & 'fill-in-our-blanks', metaphysics seems only (or mostly) concerned with (A) systematically categorizing all (our) 'dots & blanks' and then (B) synoptically making sense of "the big picture" pixellated from the totality of (our) 'connections & fills'. IMO, these topics are quite entangled: epistemology (i.e. how to make, use & revise (our) maps/models) and metaphysics (i.e. how to orient ourselves using the limits of (our) maps/models with respect to (the) territory) imply one another, no?

Why is there a subdiscipline of philosophy where Metaphysics and Epistemology grouped together — Shawn

Because they are both fundamental to philosophy.

Perhaps, psychology broadly considered, yes. It's a massive topic and not our most developed science by any means.

"Physics" has overwhelmed "Metaphysics" and no human intuition can add any value to the understanding of reality without a good understanding of present physics.
Epistemology is still interesting as much as it connects with philosophy of language and cognitivism... — Raul

In terms of Aristotle's original conception of metaphysics, absolutely no doubt about that.

Which is why many "metaphysical questions" like, "what is the self", "how can we best consider causation", "are events more primary than objects", "is free will impossible" are actually questions about how we interpret the world and not about the world itself. With a few exceptions.

But QM is obviously way to complicated for us to understand too well, at the moment anyway.

Physicians know already very profound facts and laws of nature that go beyond any philosopher's intuition. "Physics" has overwhelmed "Metaphysics" and no human intuition can add any value to the understanding of reality without a good understanding of present physics — Raul

It sounds like your aquaintance with philosophy doesnt go past the early 1800’s. It has been more than a century since physics deserved the title of queen of the sciences. It has been usurped by the biological and social
sciences , as they have assimilated newer philosophical
ideas. The best philosophy of the past century points to a future of thinking that today’s physics is still
far from grasping.

In terms of Aristotle's original conception of metaphysics, — Manuel

Not only Aristotle's but Kant and any metaphysics. Philosophers just try to reinvent and redefine metaphysics again and again. It is like a philosophical religion, no progress, going in circles... inherited by continental traditions... well you know where I'm going to.

It has been more than a century since physics deserved the title of queen of the sciences. It has been usurped by the biological and social — Joshs

I don't think "usurped" is the right word. The whole science has usurped many philosophical fields... but biology and social science are just different fields than physics.

The best philosophy of the past century points to a future of thinking that today’s physics is still
far from grasping. — Joshs

We're talking "metaphysics" and "epistemology" not Philosophy in general. If we talk "Philosophy" of last century I agree if you refer to philosophy of language and philosophy of mind. These 2 branches of philosophy have been very prolific for new sciences during XX century, what is not the case of metaphysics.

Is it true that only the logical positivists tried to reduce metaphysics to epistemology?

biology and social science are just different fields than physics. — Raul

They’re not just different fields. They rely on
philosophical presuppositions that are out of reach of many physicists. For instance , Lee Smolen’s partnership with an Italian philosopher was prompted
by his belief that a core presupposition of many contemporary physicists, inherited from
thinkers like Einstein, treats time as a human construction that is superfluous to the understanding of physical processes.
Smolen argues instead that time need to be seen as absolutely fundamental to physics in order for physics to progress. In recognizing this, he is just bringing physics up to date with where evolutionary biology has been since Darwin ( and Darwin is a translation of Hegel into empirical language ).

Darwin is a translation of Hegel into empirical language — Joshs

You think so?

Ahh! There's so much to talk about this issue...

Darwin is a translation of Hegel into empirical language
— Joshs

You think so? — magritte

It would probably be more precise to say that Darwin is a translation of a becoming -based philosophical idealism that Hegelianism prominently articulates.
Peirce’s
motto apparently was “Darwinizing Hegel and Hegelianizing Darwin”.

Smolen argues instead that time need to be seen as absolutely fundamental to physics — Joshs

Science fields feed each other. Physics helps biology and the other way around... I don't see what is your point within this discussion. Are you saying there is a kind of hierarchy of scientific fields? If this is the case, of course I disagree.

and Darwin is a translation of Hegel into empirical language — Joshs

I agree philosophy is the "mother" of science but this example you make is really unfortunate. What about Lamark? He copied Hegel as well? Nonsense.

Metaphysics is “....any speculative science based on principles, independent of experience....”, under which is the metaphysics of knowledge and the metaphysics of morals. Under the metaphysics of knowledge is that of the natural sciences, the objects of which are given, and that of pure theoretical reason, the objects of which are constructed. Under the metaphysics of morals is that of pure practical reason, the objects of which are determined.

Metaphysics is grouped with epistemology merely because while natural science requires electronics and stuff to discover what it is, the human himself to which that knowledge belongs, does not.

:chin: ... Wuhhhauuu!
Hi Mww,
Metaphysics is not "speculative science", has nothing to do with science, speculative or not.
Agree it is pure speculation, but not a "scientific" speculation. I would rather say a naïf-anthropocentric-intuition kind of speculation.

Metaphysics is not "independent from experience". There is nothing in human cognition or possibility of though that is not influenced by or independent of experience.