It’s the job of the scientific theoretician to envision, measure and discover cerebrally, real and important practical things unseen by common sense.
It’s the job of the scientist to envision, measure and discover practically, real and important physical things unseen by common sense.
It’s the job of the philosophical theoretician to examine, understand and narrate the mesh entwining empirical experience verified by science with cognitive cerebration arrived at by reason.
It is the job of philosophy to contextualize, experientially, the ever-contested concepts of reality guiding humanity through its daily activities.
Metaphysics over-arches these various activities.
It’s the job of the metaphysician to stand upon the practical foundation of scientific truth and spin a cognitive narrative of a cerebrally inhabitable world that imparts logical-conceptual coherence to physical things — ucarr
It’s the job of the metaphysician to stand upon the practical foundation of scientific truth and spin a cognitive narrative of a cerebrally inhabitable world that imparts logical-conceptual coherence to physical things. — ucarr
It’s the job of the metaphysician to stand upon the practical foundation of scientific truth and spin a cognitive narrative of a cerebrally inhabitable world that imparts logical-conceptual coherence to physical things. — ucarr
I would argue instead that science was and always will be merely an applied , conventionalized form of philosophical inquiry. Any substantial development in scientific understanding of the world relies on a shift in metaphysical presuppositions grounding empirical explanation. The philosophical clarification does come later , it is the precondition for the intelligibility and advance of a science. — Joshs
Whereas the sciences concern possible models for experimentally explaining transformations among 'aspects of nature', metaphysics, to my mind, concerns the concept – rational speculation – of 'nature as a whole' that necessarily encompasses the most rigorous findings of the sciences as well as all other human practices and non-human events/processes. Statements in metaphysics are paradigmatic and presuuppositional, not theoretical or propositional; (ontological) interpretations of the latter are only symptomatic – insightful though still speculative – of the former (e.g. MWI, mediocrity principle). — 180 Proof
I'm not saying he was a metaphysician, but Nietzsche endures, in part, because he was a good storyteller. — ucarr
I do think science without philosophy fares better than the reverse. — ucarr
I don't see how such a statement can be true. Aristotle's The Physics preceded Isaac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by nearly two millennia without anticipating any of the latter's significant breakthroughs or findings.Philosophy has always taken the lead in sketching out the basis of new developments in the sciences, offer a century ahead of time. — Joshs
Whereas the sciences concern possible models for experimentally explaining transformations among 'aspects of nature', metaphysics, to my mind, concerns the concept – rational speculation – of 'nature as a whole' that necessarily encompasses the most rigorous findings of the sciences as well as all other human practices and non-human events/processes. Statements in metaphysics are paradigmatic and presuppositional, not theoretical or propositional; (ontological) interpretations of the latter are only symptomatic – insightful though still speculative – of the former (e.g. MWI, mediocrity prin — 180 Proof
As a math person what immediately comes to mind when the word metaphysics arises is Leibntz's notion of the infinitesimal. These tiny things cannot possibly exist, yet they can be used to develop profound mathematical results. — jgill
Let's agree that I have a problem with a lot of philosophy. — coolazice
How would you define ‘fares better’? If you want the next best thing to a crystal ball reveal of the future of the sciences, look to the leading edge of contemporary philosophy. This has always been the case. Philosophy has always taken the lead in sketching out the basis of new developments in the sciences, offer a century ahead of time. — Joshs
I don't see how such a statement can be true. Aristotle's The Physics preceded Isaac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by nearly two millennia withoit anticipating any of the latter's significant breakthroughs or findings. — 180 Proof
Existence precedes essence. — ucarr
Science rests on a metaphysics - the notion that the world is intelligible and can be understood through physicalism - or something like that. — Tom Storm
I would argue instead that science was and always will be merely an applied , conventionalized form of philosophical inquiry. — Joshs
All ideas rest on foundations and pre-suppositions. — Tom Storm
A philosophy is to a grammar as a science is to a library. IMO as complementaries, while the latter without the former is unintelligible (or less intelligible than formulating its problems requires), the former without the latter is ineffable (or less effable than clearly expressing it requires). — 180 Proof
Existence precedes essence.
— ucarr
Not really. When a thing comes into existence it must be already predetermined what it will be, or else there would just be randomness, consequently no thing, as a thing has structure. Therefore a thing's essence, (what it will be), must precede its existence, (that it is). — Metaphysician Undercover
When a thing comes into existence it must be already predetermined what it will be — Metaphysician Undercover
or else there would just be randomness, consequently no thing, as a thing has structure. — Metaphysician Undercover
By fare better I mean that within the interweave of science and philosophy, hands on experimentation and practical vetting count for more than conversation and literature. The two disciplines are each of such complexity and difficulty as to compel specialization in one or the other. Of the two I think science can better stand alone. Banish the scientist from all contact with philosophy and I think the discipline will continue along its merry way without much faltering. As for the reverse, philosophy sans science is like a race car without an engine. No, the bailiwick of science is What is Life? whereas the bailiwick of philosophy is What is good life? When the philosopher correctly foresees the way forward for science such person walks in the shoes of the scientist — ucarr
I don't see how such a statement can be true. Aristotle's The Physics preceded Isaac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by nearly two millennia withoit anticipating any of the latter's significant breakthroughs or findings. — 180 Proof
↪ucarr A philosophy is to a grammar as a science is to a library. IMO as complementaries, while the latter without the former is unintelligible (or less intelligible than formulating its problems requires), the former without the latter is ineffable (or less effable than clearly expressiing it requires). — 180 Proof
Whereas the sciences concern possible models for experimentally explaining transformations among 'aspects of nature', metaphysics, to my mind, concerns the concept – rational speculation – of 'nature as a whole' that necessarily encompasses the most rigorous findings of the sciences as well as all other human practices and non-human events/processes. Statements in metaphysics are paradigmatic and presuppositional, not theoretical or propositional; (ontological) interpretations of the latter are only symptomatic – insightful though still speculative – of the former (e.g. MWI, mediocrity prin
— 180 Proof
This is nice — Tom Storm
wtf :roll: What's a Shakespearean tragedy other than a grammatical structure? Quite reductivist for a p0m0 (i.e. social constructionist) like you, Joshs.What is a scientific theory other than a grammatical
structure? — Joshs
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.