↪Joshs I don't find conflating Cartesian algebraic geometry with Newtonian (or Leibnizian) calculus insightful or relevant. Besides, scientists build on the work of their predecessors in the sciences independent of any philosophical considerations. As CS Peirce or Paul Feyerabend shows, scientific practices are largely opportunistic "anything goes" endeavors which largely are n o t deductions from first principles. Philosophy from time to time may provide an impetus for "paradigm shifts" but it does not inform building and testing hypothetical models. As Witty exhaustively points out, philosophy does not explain facts of the matter, that is, is n o t theoretical in the way of empirical or formal sciences. — 180 Proof
A confession: metaphysics has always seemed to me like a bunch of men sharing just-so stories after smoking a crack pipe. — coolazice
science also is nothing but a bunch of folk sharing just-so stories after smoking a crack pipe — Joshs
It should be mentioned that the ideas that make their way into Darwin’s theory of evolutionnor Newton’s physics come from many aspects of the surrounding culture outside of science ‘proper’( if there ever was such a thing). — Joshs
Science rests on a metaphysics - the notion that the world is intelligible and can be understood through physicalism or something like that.
— Tom Storm
My problem is, essentially: how on earth could we even come close to demonstrating that this is the case? Why should I take this metaphysical speculation seriously? — coolazice
All ideas rest on foundations and pre-suppositions.
— Tom Storm
This claim approaches the Rosetta Stone of knowledge: the axiom. — ucarr
To the extent that we can separate the scientific and the philosophical, which blur into each other in so many ways, — Joshs
What you’re describing isnt science, it’s scientism, which assumes that science, through its methods, has a privileged access to empirical reality. — Joshs
If an empirical researcher in psychology or biology has not assimilated
the most advanced thinking available in philosophy they will simply be reinventing the wheel. This is what most of todays sciences are doing now. They are regurgitating older insights of philosophy using their own specialized vocabulary. — Joshs
o really grasp the nature of metaphysics and its role in our lives is to realize that , when it comes down to it, science also is nothing but a bunch of folk sharing just-so stories after smoking a crack pipe — Joshs
I think people often retrofit foundations and presuppositions - to explain things to themselves and others. — Tom Storm
Ok, next time you get sick don't rely on the science of medicine, don't go to hospitals, you can do a lot of metaphysics, something like 1 hour of metaphysics in the morning and another 1 hour in the evening and I'm sure you will recover quickly... well... you could get a huge headache as side effect :-)
Would be funny to show your sentence to Hipocrate... you tell him, look all the progress made by science in medicine is ridiculous, we keep curing and treating people the same way you did 2400 years ago...
Same applies to engineering, physics, astronomy, etc.............. — Raul
Predetermination of what it will be IS an existence so, coming into existence is voided by this language. — ucarr
Also, how does predetermination of what will be come into existence? Infinite regress. Why? When you try to speak analytically regarding existing things, you plunge into infinite regress. This is why useful analyses begin with axioms. — ucarr
As above, "randomness" is an existing thing. Your language indicates this: ...there would just be randomness... — ucarr
The demonstration is that scientists generally take the the view that the world is intelligible and can be understood through physicalism. That's how they come to identifying physical laws in a physical universe, and take the view that humans can understand the universe, right? — Tom Storm
To really grasp the nature of metaphysics and its role in our lives is to realize that , when it comes down to it, science also is nothing but a bunch of folk sharing just-so stories after smoking a crack pipe — Joshs
Predetermination is not existence. — Metaphysician Undercover
Also, do you really need to have any metaphysical commitments in order to conduct scientific research? Can't you just smash some atoms together and see what happens?
To really grasp the nature of metaphysics and its role in our lives is to realize that , when it comes down to it, science also is nothing but a bunch of folk sharing just-so stories after smoking a crack pipe
— Joshs
When they're explaining their theories, sure. But they're also comparing their just-so stories with each other and providing experiments which support the stories in a way which is very appealing to the critical mind. Do metaphysicians have anything comparable? — coolazice
While I find this kind of claim exciting, do you think this might be more outrageous than accurate? — Tom Storm
I'm not sure you can demonstrate the validity of a metaphysical presumption by looking at what scientists do — coolazice
Also, do you really need to have any metaphysical commitments in order to conduct scientific research? Can't you just smash some atoms together and see what happens? — coolazice
Naturalism is a counterpart to theism. Theism says there's the physical world and God. Naturalism says there's only the natural world. There are no spirits, no deities, or anything else.
Some people believe, probably because they are rooted the Western physicalist/naturalist tradition, that science has no metaphysical presuppositions. — Tom Storm
Here's physicist Sean Carroll:
Naturalism is a counterpart to theism. Theism says there's the physical world and God. Naturalism says there's only the natural world. There are no spirits, no deities, or anything else. — Tom Storm
To invalidate this proposed state of affairs, simply present an empirical science in which no tacit use of effects or of identities take place. If not in practice, then in principle - taking into account that empirical sciences by definition make use of human awareness regarding the external world which, as such, is tmk not realizable in the absence of a presumed reality to causation and identity. — javra
Why Metaphysics Is Legitimate — ucarr
So we might more profitably ask, what metaphysics is legitimate? What stuff that we call "metaphysics" is useful? — Banno
Metaphysics is not post hoc, but an integral part of physics, and of whatever else we might do. — Banno
When they're [scientists] explaining their theories, sure. But they're also comparing their just-so stories with each other and providing experiments which support the stories in a way which is very appealing to the critical mind. Do metaphysicians have anything comparable? — coolazice
(Stanford Metaphysics Lab)The theory of abstract objects is a metaphysical theory. Whereas physics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex concrete objects, metaphysics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex abstract objects.
The Stanford Metaphysics Lab attempts to put an element of solidity into the study of metaphysics, a topic of endless and entirely non-productive discussions.
The theory of abstract objects is a metaphysical theory. Whereas physics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex concrete objects, metaphysics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and complex abstract objects.
(Stanford Metaphysics Lab) — jgill
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.