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. — Wayfarer

Certainly true. I think this is a matter for personal judgement and I can't find any merit in any construction of the term faith that I have heard to date. But my original point was I don't like the word faith used to describe ordinary activities (flight, crossing a road, getting in an elevator). It seems a pointless use of the term. This is a personal preference about language.

By "faith" you mean trust, not "hope" or "submission", right?

:up:

I agree with you that my descriptions of how humans learn from the moment they are born, are not as rigorous and formalised as the application of the scientific method is, when assessing the validity of a scientific hypothesis, but the scientific method was created due to human desire to establish better and more reliable ways to separate truth from non-truth. It's a method that took millennia for humans to finally arrive at.
The scientific method is our best methodology for finding out truths about the workings and structure of the universe and truths that lead to technologies.
I do also think that the scientific method has a much better chance of eventually explaining the origins of such phenomena as human consciousness and human psychology (via neuroscience) when compared to the chances of getting any reliable answers from the supernatural, the mystical, theism, theosophistry, magic, astrology, tea leaves or the entrails of a chicken.

Everyone knows dinosaurs were the biggest threat to humans. — Clarky

:smile: Ken Ham would love you and welcome you into his group who are currently trying to build a replica of the tower of babel. :lol: The poor man will be so devastated, if you utter the words, 'I was only kiddin Ken,' to him. :naughty: Especially if you shout it in a different language as you visit and climb up his newly completed replica tower. Do you think the level of the tower where Engish is spoken will be at the top, middle or bottom?

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

(OPENING) It would be rather unwise of me (or anyone) to dismiss Karen Armstrong's perspectives just out of hand. But I believe she has a much more narrow view of Metaphysics than I. All the branches of science were once a form of philosophy. But science evolves, just as humanity evolves, and just as views on how humanity knows what it knows, and by what means the knowledge was acquired.

↪Rocco Rosano: — Wayfarer

"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.

(COMMENT)

We know that when we study the central themes of cause and effects, the probability for change, and the reality of the universe as we evaluate the outcome relative to the first principles. In this regard, "physics" and "metaphysics" have very similar goals and objectives. They both research the universe and the reality to which they belong. Yet, they use different techniques, processes, and methodologies (accumulated truth). This becomes obvious when we examine the duality (wave • particle) of the electron.

Both Physics and Metaphysics will have hiccups from time to time. But as long as humanity has a belief in the supernatural, Metaphysics will have the advantage over physics.

Most Respectfully,
R

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. — universeness

Yes, but that one decision does not come about williy nilly. It is not solely my decision. There are procedures I follow. I check the legislation, I check jurisprudence and I read up on the opinion of the authors in cases alike. If I am feeling very meticulous I might even look up the opinions of courts in other jurisdictions. I read up on the state of the art concerning standards of care and try to gauge the meaning of the legislators behind the article at stake. I present my opinion not as my gut feeling but as informed legal judgment, the steps of which everyone can follow.

There are however metaphysical assumptions made in law. For instance that I should follow the supreme court's judgments. (Not mandatory in NL though, but still often done) That I should care about what learned scholars had to say about such a matter. That the goal of the legislator can be deduced from the parliamentary documents. Moreover law also assumes people have a choice in doing what they do and so are liable for tort when they make a choice that harms others. Those are a lot of assumptions revealing the rationalistic metaphysics behind law.

Yet... reformulating the problem in physical terms brings me nowhere. That shows that metaphysics cannot be reduced to physics. There is more to 'being' than mere particles moving about. The humanities may not be capturable in your physicalist metaphysics. That is: what a thing is, is perhaps not ultimately decided upon by the matter it is made of.

Yes, but that one decision does not come about williy nilly. It is not solely my decision. There are procedures I follow. I check the legislation, I check jurisprudence and I read up on the opinion of the authors in cases alike. If I am feeling very meticulous I might even look up the opinions of courts in other jurisdictions. I read up on the state of the art concerning standards of care and try to gauge the meaning of the legislators behind the article at stake. I present my opinion not as my gut feeling but as informed legal judgment, the steps of which everyone can follow. — Tobias

Sounds like a valid version of the scientific method as applied in the legal profession, to me.

There are however metaphysical assumptions made in law. For instance that I should follow the supreme court's judgments. (Not mandatory in NL though, but still often done) That I should care about what learned scholars had to say about such a matter. That the goal of the legislator can be deduced from the parliamentary documents. Moreover law also assumes people have a choice in doing what they do and so are liable for tort when they make a choice that harms others. Those are a lot of assumptions revealing the rationalistic metaphysics behind law. — Tobias

But this is the kind of definition/application of the term 'metaphysics' that I support, although it's probably more 'metajudicial, or metajurisprudence.' I notice you didn't mention god once or any other supernatural source, that you might consult, to help you with your decision-making. Based on that, you would make a better USA president than Regan (who it is rumored consulted soothsayers) Bush (the senior narcissist or the junior narcissist) and you would definitely be better that the sociopathic Trump.
I find it incredible that courts still have witnesses place their hand on a book of fables before they swear to tell the truth. Hah! They are swearing to tell the truth with their hand on a book containing very little truth imo.
You offer some indicators of your own struggles, based on your own interpretations, of the guidelines around the current legal system (at state and national level) where you live.These guidelines suggest the path you must follow and you are analysing the guidelines, and the path, based on the cases you deal with.
I like the fact that you struggle and that your struggle is based on a wish to not do unjust harm to others. Surely such struggles will make you a good legislator in the final analysis.

Yet... reformulating the problem in physical terms brings me nowhere. That shows that metaphysics cannot be reduced to physics. There is more to 'being' than mere particles moving about. The humanities may not be capturable in your physicalist metaphysics. That is: what a thing is, is perhaps not ultimately decided upon by the matter it is made of — Tobias

I don't see how that follows from what you describe above?
You are considering 'guidelines,' in what sense are guidelines or suggestions based on the similar experiences of other legislators not 'physical.' These other examples really happened, they are not merely based on the fabled decisions of Solomon in the old testament! or the fabled judgments of god via Moses when he came down from mount Sinai! I would be a lot more concerned for your position if they were.

I see no logic to your path of thinking here. Metaphysics should be used to assist and complement physics not be 'reduced' to it!
There is more to 'being' than mere particles moving about
I don't remember suggesting this is wrong, but I do suggest that the 'more' you suggest has nothing to do with woo woo.
The humanities may not be capturable in your physicalist metaphysics. That is: what a thing is, is perhaps not ultimately decided upon by the matter it is made of
I am an advocate of the Aristotelian metaphysical viewpoint that 'The whole is more than the sum of its parts,' but I temper it with what can occur when 'very large diversity is combined in many many ways.'
It's still physical materialism. There is still no need for woo woo imo.

Sounds like a valid version of the scientific method as applied in the legal profession, to me. — universeness

Ohh, no, it is everything but the scientific method. It is a version of scholasticism. I will briefly explain. To this case I would apply the standard of 'commonly expected reasonable conduct' from article 6:162 of the Dutch civil code. In a number of judgments which does not render a very clear line, but at least a reasonably one, we can deduce that one has a standard of care for other people's goods which states that if it is foreseeable, in your control and easy to fix, you are liable for damages if you did not prevent the accident from happening. Leaving a tap running foreseeably causes damages, is in your house and easy to fix without giving you any trouble. It is actually very clear cut. (it used to be different on the 1890's from which this case stems ;) )

However what I will not do to substantiate the common expected reasonable conduct norm, is to ask 10.000 people what they think in this case reasonable conduct would be, plot it in SPSS and find some sort of statistically significant number to say with confidence "this is what is commonly expected". The funny thing is we are actually only minimally interested in what is commonly expected at all. We, the legal community, the learned scholars fill in this norm.

But this is the kind of definition/application of the term 'metaphysics' that I support, although it's probably more 'metajudicial, or metajurisprudence.' I notice you didn't mention god once or any other supernatural source, that you might consult, to help you with your decision-making. — universeness

No of course. But metaphysics as a term for 'the search for the supernatural' has really nothing to do with philosophy. Whatever metaphysics is, it is not that :D What I use the example for is to show you made a metaphysical move, namely reduce all our knowledge to physical knowledge and all 'science' to the positivistic natural sciences, whereas in law we deal with a normative science (or art, the judgment is still out) which is not (and arguably cannot be) conducted with the same natural scientific concepts.

I don't see how that follows from what you describe above?
You are considering 'guidelines,' in what sense are guidelines or suggestions based on the similar experiences of other legislators not 'physical.' These other examples really happened, they are not merely based on the fabled decisions of Solomon in the old testament! or the fabled judgments of god via Moses when he came down from mount Sinai! I would be a lot more concerned for your position if they were. — universeness

Certainly they happened. But law tries to establish what the normative import of such a fact is. A left the tap open and B's goods stacked in a wherehouse below got damaged. It is a fact and I can describe exactly how the damage came about in physical terms. Nothing supernatural needed, nothing normative too. However, what I can not establish is whether we should reproach A for the fact that this state of affairs came about. The judgment that we o ultimately displays the metaphysical assumptions inherent in law, that people have a choice to open or close the tap, that if they possess a modicum of rationality, they should figure out the concsequences, that the world is not a deterministic place because otherwise it would not make sense to hold people morally culpable on normative grounds, but only on utilitarian grounds etc.

(I am indeed an asst prof of 'metajurisprudence', 'metajuridica' as we say :) )

I was only kiddin Ken — universeness

I learned everything I know about prehistory from the Flintstones. Yabba Dabba Do.

The scientific method is our best methodology for finding out truths about the workings and structure of the universe and truths that lead to technologies.
I do also think that the scientific method has a much better chance of eventually explaining the origins of such phenomena as human consciousness and human psychology (via neuroscience) when compared to the chances of getting any reliable answers from the supernatural, the mystical, theism, theosophistry, magic, astrology, tea leaves or the entrails of a chicken. — universeness

I was not finding fault with your affection for the scientific method. I'm an engineer with a strong interest in science. That has a lot to do with my interest in philosophy. On the other hand, I think you were misusing the term when you were discussing how most people, and I assume you, make decisions about what's going on in the world. Unless you are very unusual, perhaps unique, you don't examine every fact rationally and test if for validity. You make assumptions, listen to what other people tell you, follow your intuition. While I think intuition ultimately comes from experience, in my experience it and it's contents are not rational or logical.

[M]etaphysics as a term for 'the search for the supernatural' has really nothing to do with philosophy. Whatever metaphysics is, it is not that — Tobias

:fire:

I can see your point about metaphysics appearing as 'an island outside the criticism of science' insofar as it involves aspects which cannot be known directly. It does make it hard to come up with a clear picture, interrelated with the problem of epistemology. Certainly, it does seem that science is extremely important, and it may be that the metaphysical imagination is involved. Some may choose to disregard it, but it may be that it is not as if scientific paradigms don't change, especially the Cartesian-Newtonian one to the one of quantum physics. There is a danger of any of these models being seen too literally.

I do agree that metaphysics doesn't have to be a search for the 'supernatural' and that may be part of the problem, with it being seen as the attempt to find hidden meanings which are mythic. It may be that the problem is about concrete thinking in the first place rather than about understanding the interplay between causation and symbolic aspects of human thinking.

IME, natural science itself is 'the search for the supernatural', that is, probing for any gaps in, or exceptions to, 'objectively explainable' phenomena (i.e. events in nature which contradict well-established 'laws of nature' or observed regularities (constants)). What's to me uniquely great about natural science is that it is the only human endeavor based on self-correction and tasked with using nature – experimental findings – in attempts to refute itself. Metaphysics, on the other hand with respect to natural science, only reflectively conceptualizes natural science's presuppositions and principles (including – or implying – a 'natural-supernatural distinction'), which, of course, is categorical (analytic or hermeneutical) and not hypothetical (scientific or factual) – re: how we must look at 'whatever we can see', not what we can see.

The idea of seeing 'natural science as the "search for the supernatural"' is an interesting construct. It may take some physicalists by surprise. The issue will be that there will always be gaps. When old ones close, new ones will emerge. It is a bit like the idea of the Waterboys' song, of seeking to see 'The Whole of the Moon'. I am not opposed to science though because self-correction is important. The idea of the natural supernatural is extremely different from making things up. Apart from causation the nature of rational thinking about the ideas and concepts which are used does seem to be essential.

It is possible that a lot of different meanings of many topics glosses over so much of the initial concepts within metaphysics. Terms like mind and body can be used differently even though, generally mind is taken to be the mental and body as the physical, because there isn't a clear division between the two, making it problematic to say that one caused the other to exist. So, metaphysics may involve some details of what ideas involve in their implications. The reflection on such meaning may give rise to deeper understanding and this kind of metaphysics which is more about reflections on conceptual aspects of thoughts may aid clearer understanding.

I am not sure that this kind of analysis would be opposed to the approach of Kant and Hume, who were the starting point of Murdoch's critique. Part of the essential problem may be the term metaphysics and what people associate with it because many may see it as an archaic term. The idea of looking at 'how we see' may be part of this way of thinking because the thoughts which a person has are based on consciousness itself, so cannot be separated from the meanings, even if they are shared by many.

It goes back to the idea of the observer role in perception, or even science, with the relative understandings implied. This does entail a certain amount of relativism and may mean that part of the problem of the gaps is because there is a perceptual element to any understanding of reality at all. It may be related to the idea of the multiverse or multidimensional because there are infinite ways of perceiving or understanding.
Each person sees differently and the individual's own perspective is in a process of changing all the time.

It goes back to the idea of the observer role in perception, or even science, with the relative understandings implied. This does entail a certain amount of relativism and may mean that part of the problem of the gaps is because there is a perceptual element to any understanding of reality at all. — Jack Cummins

Well, as I've pointed out, metaphysics in the classical / Aristotlean sense of "first philosophy" concerns how we must look at ... not merely, in the "perspectival" (relativist) sense, "how we (happen to) see" ...

I'm not concerned with how people colloquially use 'metaphysics' or associate it with New Age / occult / mystical 'ideas' (imagery); I'm concerned with it in much the same sense as, for instance, Hume and Kant were. Iris Murdoch's idea of metaphysics more like that of Plato than like Aristotle's referring to what she called "the inner life" of imagining The Good (love) instead of as a logical demonstration of "The Absolute" (truth); Hume and Kant – their heirs like Freddy Ayer et al – argue, in effect, that the latter is invalid, fallacious nonsense and thus dispensable, but as I read Iris Murdoch (it's been quite a while, except for The Sovereignty of Good), IIRC, she objects to throwing out, so to speak, the baby Jesus with the holy bathwater – that is, eliminating 'metaphysics as such' along with Aristotlean / Thomist metaphysics in particular – and she is correct, I think (anti-platonist epicurean-spinozist that I am :smirk:), the inadequacies of the latter do not eliminate the (epistemological & ethical) needs for the former.

Iris reimagines 'Platonism' – in (her) milieu of (interwar) scientistic positivism and (postwar) existentialist romanticism – as the un-self-centering 'flight from ego-fantasy to love-of-reality', or in George Steiner's felicitous phrase, (reality aka) "the immensity of the particular". 'The sublime' (contra Kant). One must learn to see The Good by paying attention to, as Jonathan Miller* used to say, "the negligible and the insignificant" as well as by engaging in creative arts (pace Plato!).

*link

Ohh, no, it is everything but the scientific method. It is a version of scholasticism — Tobias

I think it earlier systems such as 'scholasticism' and even stoicism etc are 'contributors' to the development of the scientific method. From wiki:
Scholasticism is a method of learning more than a philosophy or a theology, since it places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference and to resolve contradictions. Scholastic thought is also known for rigorous conceptual analysis and the careful drawing of distinctions. In the classroom and in writing, it often takes the form of explicit disputation; a topic drawn from the tradition is broached in the form of a question, oppositional responses are given, a counterproposal is argued and oppositional arguments rebutted. Because of its emphasis on rigorous dialectical method, scholasticism was eventually applied to many other fields of study.

I think the scientific method does employ 'inference,' 'rigorous conceptual analysis,' 'distinctions,' 'explicit disputation,' 'argument rebuttle,' etc. This will be based on many many, rigorously controlled
experiments, but scientists will still interpret the results gained in different ways and project implications.

However what I will not do to substantiate the common expected reasonable conduct norm, is to ask 10.000 people what they think in this case reasonable conduct would be — Tobias

Not 10,000 laypeople no, but perhaps you will garnish the opinion of a few of your experienced colleagues to build confidence in your own direction of thought. This is akin to the scientist trying the same experiment or different scientists trying the same experiment more than once to attempt to confirm results or find anomalies in interpretations of results already gained.

But metaphysics as a term for 'the search for the supernatural' has really nothing to do with philosophy. — Tobias

Do you think all 'philosophers,' would agree with you here?

What I use the example for is to show you made a metaphysical move, namely reduce all our knowledge to physical knowledge and all 'science' to the positivistic natural sciences, whereas in law we deal with a normative science (or art, the judgment is still out) which is not (and arguably cannot be) conducted with the same natural scientific concepts. — Tobias

Which is part of our disagreement. To me, you are suggesting that insisting all knowledge and all future knowledge belongs to the label 'natural science,' is problematic and insufficient. I disagree and insist that the label 'natural' is sufficient for all knowledge that passes scientific scrutiny and any proposal or idea that does not pass such scientific scrutiny should be refused the label 'knowledge.'

The judgment that we o ultimately displays the metaphysical assumptions inherent in law, that people have a choice to open or close the tap, that if they possess a modicum of rationality, they should figure out the concsequences, that the world is not a deterministic place because otherwise it would not make sense to hold people morally culpable on normative grounds, but only on utilitarian grounds etc. — Tobias

Again, in the example you raise above, you are imo, exemplifying the wisdom of supplying humans with the best 'knowledge' that we can produce. Then they might make better choices in their day-to-day lives.
If we keep providing them with very bad examples of 'applied knowledge,' such as swearing to tell the truth by placing their hand on a book of fables.' Then they might feel they can waste as much water as their mood dictates, regardless of the cost to another. They can always claim god commanded them to 'let its glorious waters flow freely into the thirsty Earth!!' Who are you to judge the will of the supernatural? Metaphysically speaking of course.

I learned everything I know about prehistory from the Flintstones. Yabba Dabba Do — Clarky

I think Ken Ham uses that clarion call every time he inspires his followers in their daily toils on his tower of babel replica. 'C'mon ye glorious warriors of god, build build build our holy task! YABBA DABBA DO!'
It's probably the ringtone on his mobile phone. Perhaps even on his personal comlink to his true god, his bank manager.

I'm an engineer with a strong interest in science. That has a lot to do with my interest in philosophy. — Clarky

I know this based on your posts. I consider myself in a similar category. A career in teaching computing science and an interest in all science and some philosophy.

Unless you are very unusual, perhaps unique, you don't examine every fact rationally and test if for validity. You make assumptions, listen to what other people tell you, follow your intuition. While I think intuition ultimately comes from experience, in my experience it and it's contents are not rational or logical. — Clarky

Yes, what you describe above is part of my emotional/intuitive life but ALL that I am informs ALL that I do. So I also, as much as I can, examine rationally and seek confirmation of validity before I act or speak or type. I have clashed often with a few members here on TPF. Often the exchange is 'good natured.' On other occasions, it has been a slagfest. I learn from both flavours, I see value in both.
I disagree with you that experienced intuitive responses are mainly irrational and illogical. I think this was discussed in detail in your own thread, a while ago, about pragmatism.

:fire: — 180 Proof

Does your use of the fire image mean you agree or disagree with the quote you include?

$Philosophy - Metaphysics = Science$

:snicker:

" :fire: " usually means I find the quote or entire post illuminating.

"Philosophy — metaphysics =" sophistry.

"Philosophy — metaphysics =" sophistry. — 180 Proof

:fire: We've built a system of knowledge by first constructing a sacffolding of ideas; metaphysics is a call to examine this scaffolding with the objective of understanding, improving, detecting & correcting structural flaws in, them. Am I right/wrong?

We were thinking long before we were thinking properly. This gap period between thinking and thinking properly I call the prephilosophical period - it was characterized by intuitions, instincts, gut feelings, and loose language.

Many of the concepts metaphysics studies come from this prephilosophical period and hence I suspect the difficulty in doing metaphysics. :chin:

That's epistemology and logic to me. IME, Smith, 'knowledge-ignorance' occurs before 'reflections on knowledge-ignorance' (i.e. the latter only clarifies the former à la Witty) :point: :point: .

That's epistemology and logic to me. IME, Smith, 'knowledge-ignorance' occurs before 'reflections on knowledge-ignorance' (i.e. the latter only clarifies the former à la Witty) :point: — 180 Proof

Aye! Is there an alternative? Can we take the imperfectly-formed ideas of metaphysics and refine them for philosophical purposes?

I've tried to – I think we must – with this approach (last paragraph) :point: .

" :fire: " usually means I find the quote or entire post illuminating — 180 Proof

ok, thanks for illuminating me regarding your purpose in using the symbol.

I've tried to – I think we must – with this approach (last paragraph) :point: ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

So, you recommend an apophatic approach. That feels right; after all we're dealing with intuition and that, I suspect, usually means knowing what something, here metaphysics, is not rather than knowing what that something is. I suppose it's a bit like having forgotten something; you look around, "is it this?", no!, "is it this then?" no, not that too! You know what I mean, oui monsieur?

:fire:

My proposal isn't just "neti neti" ... Take the red pill, mi amigo, and see how deep the rabbit holes – my links – go. :cool:

My proposal isn't just "neti neti" ... Take the red pill, mi amigo, and see how deep the rabbit holes – my links – go. :cool: — 180 Proof

Capital! Some time or the other we have to face the truth, si señor?