People with mystical leanings, of which I am one, have as much right to use the English language as anyone else. The way they use it is as legitimate as any other. I certainly don't want to leave language about spirituality in the sole hands of science. On the other hand, yes, we should be clear about what we mean by the words we use — Clarky

I don't advocate for restricting how others choose to use language but based on the OP, I do want to assess the 'shakiness' of the ground I will be on if I choose to challenge anyone who tries to connect the term metaphysics with the term supernatural and its related nomenclature.

Hmmm, I always learned it that way and accepted it as a given it seems. I must have gotten it from somewhere because I was quite certain, but well pssible you are right. I thought they were the two branches of metaphysics. Maybe it is Collingwood actually. It does not make much of a difference to me though. Let's treat them as separate then... — Tobias

It's not in Collingwood, I checked. As I said, perhaps I'll start a new thread.

I'm thinking of starting a thread to examine my belief that they are inseparable. Really the same thing. — Clarky

Please do.

I don't advocate for restricting how others choose to use language but based on the OP, I do want to assess the 'shakiness' of the ground I will be on if I choose to challenge anyone who tries to connect the term metaphysics with the term supernatural and its related nomenclature. — universeness

Metaphysics is commonly used as a synonym for supernatural or religious. I don't really like that, so I try to avoid the discussion because I don't think it is easily resolvable.

Cool, there's a controversy.... As usual

Cool, there's a controversy — ZzzoneiroCosm

I don't see it as a controversy. I am used to thinking of epistemology as part of metaphysics. I think it's time for me to reexamine that understanding.

I am used to thinking of epistemology as part of metaphysics. I think it's time for me to reexamine that understand — Clarky

Even aesthetics can make use epistemology. Personally, I equate metaphysics with aesthetics.

I'm with universeness. The scientific method isn't science, it's metaphysics. — Clarky

The scientific method can be applied by anyone seeking new knowledge of any kind.
It has been honed since the moment a human first started to try to make sense of its own existence, so It's not exclusive to scientists or only when a person is doing science.
Any idea, suggestion or belief should be challenged, modeled, tested, evaluated etc.
I will not accept something as true until I see the evidence that it's true.
I will take 'a leap of faith,' in life, or if a loved one asks me to or needs me to and the circumstances prevent me from taking the time to model, test and evaluate before I act but I am a lot more uncomfortable with a leap of faith, than I am with actions based on studied empirical evidence.

Your post for instance contains hidden assumptions, for instance you equate knowledge with the physical world. However when I want to enlarge my legal knowledge, physics does not bring me much. — Tobias

Legal knowledge is a product of human endeavours. It what way is legal knowledge not part of the physical world? All human thoughts are products of physical brains!

Metaphysics is commonly used as a synonym for supernatural or religious. I don't really like that, so I try to avoid the discussion because I don't think it is easily resolvabl — Clarky

I don't much like it either but I feel more and more compulsion to combat the use of metaphysical and supernatural synonymously, whenever people try to do so.
I need to get all my counterpoints in order however, when I do combat it.
From an etymological, historical and empirical standpoint, with lots of examples included.
Metaphysics is a very important word in philosophy and in science.
Its use has to be robust and clear imo.

Metaphysics is a very important word in philosophy and in science.
Its use has to be robust and clear imo. — universeness

Agree.

I will not accept something as true until I see the evidence that it's true.
I will take 'a leap of faith,' in life, or if a loved one asks me to or needs me to and the circumstances prevent me from taking the time to model, test and evaluate before I act but I am a lot more uncomfortable with a leap of faith, than I am with actions based on studied empirical evidence. — universeness

I generally agree. Personally I would never use the word faith to describe reasonable actions taken in the world. When I catch a plane or go travelling I don't base the decision on faith but a 'reasonable confidence' that the plans will work out and the plane won't crash. This is a rational position based on the fact that travel and planes generally work safely. Faith, on the other hand, is an excuse for believing something when there is no good reason.

I am a lot more uncomfortable with a leap of faith, than I am with actions based on studied empirical evidence. — universeness

Very little of what we know is based on "studied empirical evidence."

I don't much like it either but I feel more and more compulsion to combat the use of metaphysical and supernatural synonymously, whenever people try to do so. — universeness

To be fair, it is part of the common meaning of "metaphysics." It goes back to what you said about the word being overburdened.

Legal knowledge is a product of human endeavours. It what way is legal knowledge not part of the physical world? All human thoughts are products of physical brains! — universeness

Well yes, but knowing that brain activity is neurons firing and all kinds of cellular activity simply does not tell me whether I should rule that Mrs S needs to compensate Mr P for the damages she has caused by leaving a tab running.

To be fair, it is part of the common meaning of "metaphysics." It goes back to what you said about the word being overburdened. — Clarky

I do not know by whom it is used for the supernatural... in popular tv shows maybe... Sure metaphysics studies the nature of reality and therefore also the existence or non existence of God. It has studied angels... but that is something else than witchcraft or ghostbusting.

Mysticism pantomimes metaphysics.
— Mere Foolosophy

I might say that mysticism and metaphysics mistake each other for themselves. — Clarky

No doubt they do sometimes. Thus, the oft-mentioned associations (confusions) with "the supernatural" as well.

I generally agree. Personally I would never use the word faith to describe reasonable actions taken in the world. When I catch a plane or go travelling I don't base the decision on faith but a 'reasonable confidence' that the plans will work out and the plane won't crash. This is a rational position based on the fact that travel and planes generally work safely. Faith, on the other hand, is an excuse for believing something when there is no good reason — Tom Storm

'Faith,' is another word which is currently 'claimed,' almost exclusively by theism.
@Clarky made the valid point:

I certainly don't want to leave language about spirituality in the sole hands of science. — Clarky

It follows then that a word like faith should not be left solely in the hands of theism.

Consider the following from etymonline.com:

faith (n.)
mid-13c., faith, feith, fei, fai "faithfulness to a trust or promise; loyalty to a person; honesty, truthfulness," from Anglo-French and Old French feid, foi "faith, belief, trust, confidence; pledge" (11c.), from Latin fides "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," from root of fidere "to trust,"from PIE root *bheidh- "to trust, confide, persuade." For sense evolution, see belief. Accommodated to other English abstract nouns in -th (truth, health, etc.).

From early 14c. as "assent of the mind to the truth of a statement for which there is incomplete evidence," especially "belief in religious matters" (matched with hope and charity). Since mid-14c. in reference to the Christian church or religion; from late 14c. in reference to any religious persuasion.

And faith is neither the submission of the reason, nor is it the acceptance, simply and absolutely upon testimony, of what reason cannot reach. Faith is: the being able to cleave to a power of goodness appealing to our higher and real self, not to our lower and apparent self. [Matthew Arnold, "Literature & Dogma," 1873]
From late 14c. as "confidence in a person or thing with reference to truthfulness or reliability," also "fidelity of one spouse to another." Also in Middle English "a sworn oath," hence its frequent use in Middle English oaths and asseverations (par ma fay, mid-13c.; bi my fay, c. 1300).

I glean a lot of evidence from this that the word is more related to trust between humans than it is related to belief in god(s). A husband should be able to say to his wife (or vise versa) that he has faith that she does love him, without his wife jumping to the assumption that he is 'appealing to god,' that when his wife claims she loves him, she is in earnest. It's just as valid that he is making a statement of 'trust' or as you describe it, a statement based on 'reasonable confidence.' I don't see why you feel
"Personally I would never use the word faith to describe reasonable actions taken in the world."

Very little of what we know is based on "studied empirical evidence." — Clarky

Why do you think this is so? Each human gathers empirical evidence from birth.
I think even human instincts, are based on empirical evidence gained by our earliest ancestors.
Observing daily life as it unfolds IS empirical evidence.
In Carl Sagan's book 'The Dragons of Eden.' He talks about the human sounds 'shhhhhhhhhhh' and 'pssssssssssst.' Scientists suggest that human babies recognise these two sounds from birth, instinctively. They are signals for a human to become quieter and come from our days in the wild, living in caves at night. They are both sounds that reptiles make. Reptiles were the biggest nighttime threat to humans sleeping in caves and they could find you if you made a sound.
I take the opposite view from you, I think almost everything we KNOW is based on empirical evidence/everyday observation of the happenings around you since you were born.
From when to plant, when to harvest, when to fight, when to take flight etc, etc

Well yes, but knowing that brain activity is neurons firing and all kinds of cellular activity simply does not tell me whether I should rule that Mrs S needs to compensate Mr P for the damages she has caused by leaving a tab running. — Tobias

Not individually no but as a collective, yes. The full detailed neuroactivity that happens in your brain when you make a decision/ruling based on earlier information/evidence is not fully understood but it certainly does involve neurons firing and accessing information previously stored in your brain and 'processing' it using your previously developed reasoning techniques.
Computers are mimicries of the human brain and computers contain operating system software as well as application software. In computing science, we call the equivalent software contained in the human brain, 'wetware.'

It follows then that a word like faith should not be left solely in the hands of theism. — universeness

We differ. I disagree with each point, but let's not let a little thing like faith come between us. :wink: :death:

We differ. I disagree with each point, but let's not let a little thing like faith come between us — Tom Storm

I will try to maintain my faith in your honorable intentions Tom. :grin:

I will be interested to know your thoughts on 'Existentialists and Mystics' when you have read it. You will probably approach it by a better method than mine, of reading it in one sitting and then, needing to go back for a more thorough read.

RE: To What Extent Can Metaphysics Be Eliminated From Philosophy?
SUBTOPIC: Metaphysics
⁜→ Jack Cummins, Jackson, et al,

(OPENING)

Aristotelian metaphysics (the study of reality) generally transcends the boundaries of the laws of physics (natural laws as understood at any single point in time). As our friend "Jackson" points out, "It is similar to the problem of skepticism. Doubt does not lead to knowledge." Scientists do not need Metaphysics to shape their critical thought. "Metaphysics" (as a general rule) cannot be subjected to the processes of the scientific method. So here we have the views of each end of the spectrum.

(THE CONDITIONAL STATEMENT BECOMES)

IF Metaphysics" CAN NOT be included as "Science" and is excluded from "Philosophy" THEN where does Metaphysics belong?

...
I am thinking how many see these writers, especially Kant, as being outdated philosophers of the past. In the volume, ' Existentialists and Mystics', Murdoch describes the way in which the understanding of language paved the way for the logical positivist approach, including Ayer's criticism of metaphysics.
...
I am not suggesting that such an approach is mistaken, but, on the other hand, it may be that the ideas of the system building of Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza are still important. On this forum, many do refer to them and value their writings. Therefore, I do question the idea of the gradual elimination of metaphysics. Empirical knowledge through science is extremely important, but the metaphysical imagination and art of reason may be essential in understanding the larger picture. What do you think? — Jack Cummins

(COMMENT)

The outcome of this conditional vantage point is to ignore the existence of "Metaphysics." And this becomes the solution analogous to the assumption that → with death brings an end to a particular line of thought. Some 2300 years later, we still remember Hypatia of Alexandria and her death at the hands of the clergy.

IF you eliminate Metaphysics from that which is a traditional alternative study and thought, THEN it stands alone as an island outside the criticism of science. Academia CAN NOT challenge that which they CAN NOT define and recognize. By default, "Metaphysics" reside on the threshold -
distinguished as a conceptual alternative with its own frontier.

Most Respectfully,
R

This flag was waved most vigorously by Freddie Ayer in Language Truth and Logic with a large nod in the direction of the Logical Positivists. I think one of the most interesting contemporary respo ses lies in the area of Speculative Realism and more specifically the work of Graham Harman and his ideas of Object Oriented Ontology.

Not individually no but as a collective, yes. The full detailed neuroactivity that happens in your brain when you make a decision/ruling based on earlier information/evidence is not fully understood but it certainly does involve neurons firing and accessing information previously stored in your brain and 'processing' it using your previously developed reasoning techniques.
Computers are mimicries of the human brain and computers contain operating system software as well as application software. In computing science, we call the equivalent software contained in the human brain, 'wetware.' — universeness

It is all well and good but it still does not solve my case on the water tab, collectively or individually. Those reasoning techniques are also not individually developed but collectively. Such knowledge of the brain may have an impact on law, but they do not prescribe what the impact should be. That is again a matter for a normative science to deal with. The physicalist reduction simply does not help me.

Yet your struggle with the issue continues and you will make a decision.
This will show your brain is up to the task. Mainly because it sounds like that's what your current job is and what you are paid for. Many justice systems have appeal systems in case the judged feel utterly wronged by your decision. I am sure you can consult with the legal records of similar cases. If you are the final arbiter for your 'water tab,' case then have faith in your training. Consult and make the call!
As long as you are not relying on the supernatural to send you a decision, you will be fine.

Why do you think this is so? Each human gathers empirical evidence from birth. — universeness

I think this comes down to what we mean by empirical. Here are some definitions from the web:

• Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.
• Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.
• Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

So, anyway. I agree that most if not all of what we know comes from experience. But I think very little of it comes from formal, or even conscious, learning or observation. If by "empirical," you mean anything learned from personal experience or from someone else, then I agree with you, but I think that's a big stretch for the meaning of the word. But you go even further:

The scientific method can be applied by anyone seeking new knowledge of any kind.

It has been honed since the moment a human first started to try to make sense of its own existence, so It's not exclusive to scientists or only when a person is doing science.
Any idea, suggestion or belief should be challenged, modeled, tested, evaluated etc.
I will not accept something as true until I see the evidence that it's true. — universeness

You don't just say "experience," you say "the scientific method." Fred Flintstone certainly learned from experience and from what he was taught by others, but to call that the scientific method is silly. You also say this:

I think even human instincts, are based on empirical evidence gained by our earliest ancestors. — universeness

So, now our instincts are included within the scientific method. In reality, I'm sure you make most of your decisions like the rest of us do - primarily by intuition and what other people have told you. And that's fine, but it's not challenging, modelling, testing, and evaluating any idea, suggestion, or belief. You accept things as true all the time without seeing evidence that they are true.

In Carl Sagan's book 'The Dragons of Eden.' He talks about the human sounds 'shhhhhhhhhhh' and 'pssssssssssst.' Scientists suggest that human babies recognise these two sounds from birth, instinctively. They are signals for a human to become quieter and come from our days in the wild, living in caves at night. They are both sounds that reptiles make. Reptiles were the biggest nighttime threat to humans sleeping in caves and they could find you if you made a sound. — universeness

I really liked Carl, but this is the kind of bullshit you get when you start talking about evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. People love to make up farfetched evolutionary explanations when there is no evidence at all. Everyone knows dinosaurs were the biggest threat to humans.

. Personally I would never use the word faith to describe reasonable actions taken in the world. When I catch a plane or go travelling I don't base the decision on faith but a 'reasonable confidence' that the plans will work out and the plane won't crash. This is a rational position based on the fact that travel and planes generally work safely. Faith, on the other hand, is an excuse for believing something when there is no good reason. — Tom Storm

Let’s take a closer look at how faith and reason are intertwined with each other. At one extreme you put the knowledge that the plane won’t fall out of the air, which you associate with reason and rationality. At the other end is faith on God, which is without good reason. But what is it that imparts reasonableness to the ordinary activities of our lives , our expectation that when we push a button, the computer will turn on , or when we turn our head the visual scene will change, but the objects in that scene will not change their location? We know that in perception we create expectations and those expectations are met , more or less, by what appears and the way it appears. But what we experience never precisely duplicates our expectations, so there is a kind of perceptual faith involved. We dont appreciate that this is a faith until we take lsd or suffer a stroke and suddenly our expectations become wildly mismatched with what appears.

But we still may want to argue that in normal circumstances, our understanding of our world and our expectation of how our technologies will work for us is ‘rational’, that is, there is a right match between what we anticipate or predict and what happens. Faith in god would seem not to provide us with such evidence to confirm our predictions. But what makes our sciences and technologies work the way they do and predict the world the way they do? The applied end is where we find the most dependability and predictability , but the higher we go in the abstract theoretical and meta theoretical direction , the more we find ourselves in the vicinity of faith, that is , of paradigms that do not yet have access to clearer evidence. At an even higher level
of abstraction lies the philosophical underpinnings of a science and its associated technology. At this level things are even more tentative and ‘unreasonable’.

So here’s a question , how can matters be so dependably rational at the lower applied level of our everyday dealings with machines, but have the ground be so unstable at the highest meta-theoretical level? After all, the former is just a subordinate component of the latter.

My answer is that this reasonableness is mostly a trick of language. We say the plane will stay up in the air and the train will arrive regardless of the shifting grounds of the sciences that makes these devices possible.
But what we fail to pay attention to is that we never expereince such facts as hermetically sealed entities. We experience ce the plane or train in the context of our attitudes and goals , of how these facts are relevant to us.
The subject-predicate language we use masks the facts that our ‘reasonable’ interactions with the world is shifting its ground in subtle ways all the time. The meaning of our everyday world isn’t just what happens but how it happens , how it is significant to us. Our moods don’t just color our experience, they provide us with our faith in the dependability of our world.
In severe depression everyday experience loses its salience and we lose faith i. ourselves and our competence to interact with the world. In anger we lose faith in others. In grief and mourning we lose faith in the coherence of the routines that were attached to meaningful persons in our lives who are now gone.

So a shifting faith in the world , in the sense of the relative significance, salience and coherence to us of the things and situations we are involved with, is a daily part of our lives. It defines how ‘reasonable’ our experiences really are for us, not just based on sterile logic, but in relation to the shifting coherence and relevance of our engagements with things and people. In this way, daily life and faith in god have much in common.

My answer is that this reasonableness is mostly a trick of language. We say the plane will stay up in the air and the train will arrive regardless of the shifting grounds of the sciences that makes these devices possible. — Joshs

I'm sympathetic to this line of analysis. But planes overwhelmingly do stay up in the air, and the many other devices and technologies that technological culture relies on are generally extremely reliable and stable, validating the faith we have in them. And as philosophers have often observed, scientific activity requires faith that the principles discovered by science are repeatable, dependable, that they will continue to operate in just the same way regardless of contingent factors, whence the very idea of there being scientific laws (or principles). Knowledge of these has expanded considerably since the advent of modernity, knowledge which we previously didn't have, and again is validated on a daily basis by the effectiveness of the technology, medicine, and so on, that it has enabled.

Faith, on the other hand, is an excuse for believing something when there is no good reason. — Tom Storm

That's a kind of fundamentalist view of the nature of religious faith. Many here will agree here that religious faith is belief without evidence, but that doesn't take into consideration the fact that, for a community of faith, the Universe itself is evidence of divine creation (in the theistic traditions at least, i.e. not including Buddhism.) I'm not wanting to open that particular can of worms other than to observe that those who say that faith is belief without evidence, will do so generally on the basis of having already consigned the entire tradition and history of the religion, with its sacred texts and communities of the faithful, to the dustbin of history. (This amounts to a kind of 'negative faith', a conviction in the unreliability of religious faith.) Whereas for those living within such a tradition, evidence abounds - just not in the form of peer-reviewed studies and popular culture. But bear in mind, the kinds of truth which religions deal in are on a very different level to those explored through the empirical sciences. And I also agree at least some of these communities will be characterised by delusion or denial, such as young-earth creationism or many abhorrent religious cults and movements, but by no means all of them are, there are still very many able scientists who profess Christianity, and who don't see any fundamental conflict or division between science and faith.

:clap:

"Personally I would never use the word faith to describe reasonable actions taken in the world." — universeness

Have a read of Metaphysical Mistake, Karen Armstrong.

At one extreme you put the knowledge that the plane won’t fall out of the air, which you associate with reason and rationality. — Joshs

how can matters be so dependably rational at the lower applied level of our everyday dealings with machines, but have the ground be so unstable at the highest meta-theoretical level? After all, the former is just a subordinate component of the latter. — Joshs

These are all good questions, Joshs. But they don't change how I see faith as contrasted with reasonable expectation. I appreciate your perspective. I still see a world where some beliefs are less justifiable than others. Call me old fashioned.