There is something good and beneficial about not restricting what people say. — T Clark

Yes, there is. I think that's where we get 'freedom of speech' from - we (most of us) think it's a good idea.

There is something good and beneficial about letting people decide whether what they say is good and beneficial rather than authorizing the government to do it. — T Clark

There's something very American about this. It's phrased as though the government is some kind of alien power that has been foisted on the general population, as if we'd been invaded and conquered. Not so. Because we cannot all take part in our government, for purely practical reasons, we elect representatives to act on our behalf, and to speak in our names. We are the government; the government is us.

As to the actual point you make here: yes, I agree. But (some) humans are given to hate speech, and their targets are (sometimes) unable to endure the hatred aimed at them, and respond with violence. We can confirm this by simple empirical observation. So, if we wish to avoid the violence (as a social species surely must) we have a choice. We can stop the hate-speakers or we can stop their targets. The judgement of most people is that the former is more appropriate. So that's what we do: we ban hate speech.

Freedom of speech still exists, of course, as it should, but it explicitly does not include the freedom to insult. It's exactly like banning ad hominem attacks here on TPF. It doesn't prevent discussion, only conflict. So while it would be great to allow complete freedom of speech, we (humans) have decided that we aren't able to deal with that privilege in a way that we find acceptable. So we specifically ban hate speech.

So again, you don't think that people have to decide whether to attack someone or not, or at least that they do or should have the power to stop themselves from becoming violent? — Terrapin Station

No, I don't think any of those things. We are human. Humans can be provoked beyond endurance. If Messrs Spock and Data behave otherwise, fair enough, but that's how humans are. Acknowledging our nature, and wishing to avoid conflict where possible, we proscribe hate speech. We do not reproach the target of hate speech for taking offence, any more than we reproach the shooting victim for dirtying the wall with their brain tissue. The person in the wrong is the hate-speaker. The targets of hate are just humans, we accept this, and do not condemn them for it, as it seems you would have me do, from your words above.

"It was her own fault for wearing a skirt that short."
"He should have been able to restrain himself from becoming violent."
"Snowflakes need to toughen up. Wimps!"

No, in all cases. It is not the victim who is at fault, it is the attacker.

Some other time, I guess. — T Clark

I'll be here. :wink: :smile:

For me, separating epistemology from metaphysics is artificial and misleading. — T Clark

I see what you're saying, and I sympathise. But human languages are what they are, and these things arise from time to time. We don't actually disagree, I don't think, except on the actual labels we use to describe these things. :wink: :up:

Science is fundamentally knowledge of what's what, of objective reality if you will. — T Clark

I disagree. Science studies the apparent reality that our senses and perception delivers pictures of. Philosophically, we have no way to know if those pictures (using vision as a synecdoche for all the senses) are of Objective Reality, or if they relate at all to Objective Reality, in any meaningful way. The nature of Objective Reality is not something science can even approach, without getting burnt! :wink:

We treat the world scientifically in an attempt to understand it; we treat metaphysics scientifically in an attempt to understand ourselves. — Mww

If we use only science - and it isn't clear that that's what you're suggesting, but it looks that way - then our understanding is going to be less than it could be. To address difficult issues, we need to use all the tools we have, not confine ourselves to one. Like the human eye: rods give low-res B&W vision, but with a wide area of coverage, while cones cover a much smaller area, but offer colour and higher-resolution. If we had rods, cones and squiggles, we wouldn't be bother even for an instant about whether we should continue just with rods and cones, we'd use all three. And our sight would be better for it, overall.

If we hope ever to understand ourselves, we need a lot more than logic and science to do it. :chin:

The doing of science is of a different category than that to which science is done. Just as physics is the scientific evaluation of the the known predicates of real objects from which a posteriori knowledge is given, so too can metaphysics be the scientific evaluation of all the possible predicates of pure reason from which a priori knowledge is given. In each case, the object of each science is different, but the doing of the science can be similarly rigid and potentially explanatory. — Mww

I'm sorry, I know what you say here is perfectly plausible, but all I can see is an attempt to re-label metaphysics as "science". Thus, science makes another conquest. No, I'm sorry, this won't wash.

Science is too rigid for some things, perhaps for some of the things that metaphysics deals with. To force something that is not science into the mould of science is to damage and deform it. Like psychology, an important and significant area of learning, deformed by the attempts of its own practitioners to define it as a science. Maybe to obtain grants for their research? I don't know. But a subject that studies human personality, and the like, cannot function if its only tools are logical, rigid and scientific.

The achievements of science are many; its success is admirable, and not in dispute. But it is not useful or applicable in all circumstances. If you want to consider "Truth", you need metaphysics, or something like it. Science just can't cope. You write as though science can be adapted to any use, so I ask this: how could science deal with an issue where there is no evidence - none at all - and no prospect of ever getting any?

Physics and specfically cosmology is really focusing a lot on metaphysics. All science is based on specific conclusions in metaphysics. Paradigmatic shifts that have taken place and in all liklihood will take place will have metaphysical aspects. Any scientist trying to decide what a model is and what it means about future research or what anomolies mean in relation to models, is likely mulling over metaphysical type stuff. — Coben

I see what you're getting at, but if I had written what you just did, I would have written "philosophical" every time you wrote "metaphysical". In fairness, metaphysical is not well defined to begin with, and we simply disagree about vocabulary. But I think there's more to it than just that.

Of course there is a philosophy of science, and it has a great deal to do with science. Maybe it 'belongs' with science. And then there's metaphysics, which is the cache of tools we use to investigate vague stuff, stuff where there's no evidence, and no chance of finding any, and so on. The stuff I'm describing here, as I do my (poor) best to define/describe metaphysics, is inaccessible to science, and cannot be dealt with by science. Just as there are a million things that science can deal with, but metaphysics can't even approach. They're different and complementary, science and metaphysics. I'm sorry if my vocabulary proves confusing, but just remember that when I write metaphysics, I'm referring to that branch of philosophy that considers truth, beauty, the nature of Objective Reality, and so on. Some of these things impinge upon science peripherally, but none of them are central to science. Those (the things central to science) are covered by (what I call) the philosophy of science.

Indirect causes being further back in the causal chain?

For example, in a Rube Goldberg contraption, setting a billiard ball in a slot causes a level to lower, which causes a chain to move, which causes a lighter to light . . . etc. all the way until we get to a hammer cracking an egg? — Terrapin Station

Simpler than that, I think. Either the insults prove unendurable, and the target attacks the speaker, or the words empower and provoke others to commit violence or worse. Gay-bashing, ni**er-bashing, woman-bashing (often called "rape"), and so on. Indirect, but not by much

And no positive aspects, only negative ones. Do You know of anything that is good or beneficial about hate speech? I believe there is no such thing. Can you show me otherwise? :chin:

It does cause violence, albeit indirectly.

Now you're being provocative for the sake of it. You know what is meant. I will not rehearse a well-known argument just to amuse you. :up:

Metaphysics itself was never in doubt; metaphysics as a science, never was at all. — Mww


I think you're saying that metaphysics is clearly not a science. I agree that metaphysics is not a science by itself, but there are a lot of smart people who disagree with you. As I've said, I think it is an indispensable part of science. — T Clark

I think part of this issue is the relationship between science and philosophy, in general, and between science and metaphysics, in particular. For myself, I see science as a tool that grew out of analytically-oriented philosophy. Others see science as having replaced philosophy. :gasp: Perhaps the only thing we can all agree on (even if it's for different reasons) is that metaphysics is not a science?

...if all approaches are equally right regarding the world, won't that be a contradiction as there is a single reality out there ? — Wittgenstein

There's one reality, but many possible explanations? These explanations are not "equally right" ... or at least they may not be. The significant fact here is that we can't place a numerical probability value onto these things, so we actually don't know whether these "approaches" are, or could be, "equally right". We are even more ignorant than you think? :chin:

:smile: :up:

Consequences such as? — Terrapin Station

Violence, for one example. Maybe the most significant example.

You are criticizing other countries for how they protect free speech, ( which includes banning hate speech) by
specifying it is impossible to ban hate speech and
enforce other forms of free speech. — Wittgenstein

I think it's just like this forum. We avoid ad hominem attacks, but otherwise speak (write) freely. That's all this is about: hate speech is an ad hominem attack, and carries no benefit of any sort. No-brainer? :chin:

Because hate speech has consequences, as everything does. But in the case of hate speech, all of the consequences are negative and undesirable. It should not be permitted because it has no positive benefits or attributes. It does only harm.

There are intellectual underpinnings to science I would typically consider as part of philosophy. — T Clark

:up: Me too. I just think the philosophy we call "metaphysics" is different from this. Even Wikipedia's example mentions "truth", which is not really addressable by science. Accuracy, correctness, precision, and so forth - all of these are very much part of, and addressable by, science. But truth is too abstract. And so on, for other such vague and abstract concepts as metaphysics eats for breakfast. :smile:

I haven't convinced you with my best argument. I don't have anywhere else to go. I'll fall back on an unimpeachable source - Because Wikipedia says so. — T Clark

I can't argue with this! :wink:

There are muslims who regard mockery of their religion to fall in category of hate speech and most of them allow criticism in an academic way, but many westerners regard mockery as also a part of criticism and in broader context, freedom of expression. — Wittgenstein

Americans, in particular, consider freedom of speech to be their freedom to insult. They believe they can say anything at all to anyone, without any kind of comeback or consequence. The man who can't endure it, and is provoked to violence? He must be punished. Even if someone just threatened to rape his 3yo son.

There is nothing to recommend hate speech; it should not be permitted. :roll:

That's why I called it philosophy of science rather than metaphysics. — T Clark

I still think these two subjects, while both are 'philosophy', are quite distinct. The philosophy of science belongs with science, I agree. It considers the hows, whys and wherefores of the theory and practice of science. The only other place for the philosophy of science, if it doesn't belong in the science cupboard, is in the philosophy cupboard. :wink:

Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. — Wikipedia

Well, it seems Wikipedia disagrees with me, and that there is some overlap between metaphysics and the philosophy of science. But the example they quote makes it fairly clear that the subjects are mostly distinct, but have some overlap in the consideration of science and truth, and other similar areas. Metaphysics only overlaps in their example when the philosophy of science steers away from the scientific mainstream toward peripheral (to it) areas like truth.

But I do believe that there is much more to metaphysics than truth. The nature of reality - that which actually is - is something only metaphysics can address. Science certainly can't. It confines itself - maybe sensibly? :wink: - to the apparent reality that our senses show us pictures of. It's the only 'reality' to which we have direct access, so we're stuck with it. One the one hand, common sense says that we should just stick with the only thing we have. On the other, some philosophers are fascinated by the possibility that the reality we see and hear is not what actually is. Science cannot address this. After all, there's no evidence, which disables just about every method and technique science can bring to bear.

That's not a failing of science, but only a recognition that no tool, however powerful, can address all problems. But that's not what this topic is really about. From the OP:

In my experience of talking with scientists about philosophy, I have found that many times most scientists seem to look down on it like if it were just speculative non-conducive discussions about random thoughts that anyone can make up. — Shushi

My answer to this is "yes", there are some scientists who are dismissive of philosophy, and indeed everything except science. They are mistakenly convinced that science is the One and Only Tool worthy of intellectual inquiry. These poor unfortunates are indeed dismissive of philosophy.

If any self-respecting scientist happened upon this forum, she would tell them where they can stuff their philosophy - and would be absolutely right. — SophistiCat

I don't deny the value of philosophy, nor even its applicability to science. — SophistiCat

You seem to be contradicting yourself. :chin:

If any self-respecting scientist happened upon this forum, she would tell them where they can stuff their philosophy - and would be absolutely right. — SophistiCat

Well I did maths, physics and chemistry at A level, I have a degree in Electronics, and a 40-year career in applied science (hardware and software design). I have had a lifetime interest in philosophy too, but no academic education or qualifications in that area.

I am a "self-respecting scientist". :up:

From my perspective, what you say is mistaken. Any area with a mental component has philosophy somewhere in its foundations, if you grub around enough to find it. How could it possibly be otherwise? :chin:

The reason I picked apple trees is because apples grow out of them. I guess you could say science grows up out of the philosophy of science. As I've said, another way to look at it is that science and the philosophy of science are both part of one thing. Like apples, apple trees, soil, rainfall, the farmer could all be seen as part of the system that grows apples. — T Clark

But I wasn't talking about science and the philosophy of science, I was talking about science and metaphysics. I thought we all were.... :chin: I don't see how science could 'take over' from metaphysics any more than I can see how cage-fighting could 'take over' from wallpaper. They aren't the same thing, and they don't address the same issues. They seem to me to be complementary. :chin:

To the extent that metaphysics investigates the real, physical world... — alcontali

I don't think it does, certainly not in the sense that science does so.

First off, I've never known you to play games here, so I always assume that your posts reflect genuine interest and I try to respond appropriately — T Clark

Kind of you to say so. :smile:

I don't think science and metaphysics are similar, I think they're different aspects of the same subject. — T Clark

And yet you compared the two to "apples and apple trees", so you seem to see some, er, relationship between them. What is this relationship?

Seems to me it's more like apples and apple trees. — T Clark

So what do you think metaphysics is, if it is so similar to science, as you imply? Please compare/contrast science and metaphysics to show the similarity you claim. I await your reply with genuine interest.

Metaphysics is more complex than I have made it out to be. In so far that Metaphysics addresses "What is?", I feel like "Science" is better suited to discover what actually exists. To me, Metaphysics is sort of the school of thought from when all philosophers were polymaths and part-time astronomers. — thewonder

Yes, metaphysics is difficult. If we look at wikipedia, and the Stanford dictionary of Philosophy, and so forth, we find many different descriptions of what metaphysics is, most of them unclear (IMO). About the only thing I am sure about is that metaphysics has nothing to do with physics. :smile:

Does metaphysics address "What is"? I don't know. I can only offer an example. Whether I am a brain in a vat, or one of the many other possibilities applies instead, is a question science cannot begin to address, because there is no evidence. None at all. So there is no grist for science's mill. Metaphysics allows us to consider such issues (and others too, of course). Not in the same way that science does, but that's the point. The two disciplines are complementary, with little or no overlap.

Then you refer to discovering "what actually exists", which confuses me. Do you mean to refer to Objective Reality (that which actually is, regardless of our beliefs, opinions, etc.)? If so, then I would suggest science cannot address that one either, because we have no knowing access to Objective Reality. Did you mean that, or were you intending to describe the apparent reality that our perception shows us pictures of, that science addresses as the space-time universe?

That's always the hard part. — Pattern-chaser


It isn't the hard part when you're convincing others of something that they want to believe. — TogetherTurtle

If they want to believe it, they already do. So there's no convincing necessary. To persuade someone to change their mind, from something they already believe to something different: that's the difficult bit.

But we already have science with a purpose, that purpose is Progress or Truth — leo

Hmmm. :chin:

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. — website

[Original website is here.]

To say that the purpose of science is "Progress or Truth" is to assign aspirational aims to science, aims that are not an intrinsic part of science, nor do they define or describe its purpose. Even the definition I have quoted goes too far. Science is not a suitable tool to examine the (human) "social world". I'd go farther: the misuse of science these days mainly centres on our social world, and the complete inability of science to address it usefully.

The state of being moral then, is any state that coincides with the satisfaction of fundamental human needs. — Pathogen

[My highlighting.]

So how we treat other animals, for example, is not concerned with morality? :chin:

If you are overtly racist or sexist, you will be personally attacked, your business may be attacked and you may even be physically attacked and we've seen countless examples of that. — Judaka

I'm not aware of "countless" examples. I think what you're describing is social disapproval, and the response of the community to attitudes that are not approved, never mind tolerated. :chin:

Looking forward to "debating" this for the next round of mass shootings! — Maw

That should be pretty soon, then. :worry:

"Science" has replaced Metaphysics. — thewonder

That's a bit like saying that cage-fighting has replaced wallpaper. Apples and oranges, as they say.

The hard part is the convincing of others. — TogetherTurtle

That's always the hard part. :up:

"Science" has replaced Metaphysics. Because the reasoning is better suited to task, this is not necessarily negative. — thewonder

And what is this task, for which science is so much more suitable? :chin:

That's where science leaves off in time.... :joke: — Coben

Parsing error. No meaning detected. :confused:

For as long as the casualties are so low, we don't even have the hope that eventually these people will exterminate each other. So how will they be stopped, people of America? Will you do something, or must I just sit here (thousands of miles away) and wince, and cringe, and grieve? :chin:

Wikipedia, is well, wikipedia, but even so it casts some light on this.... — Coben

Metaphysics continues asking "why" where science leaves off.... — Wikipedia

Nit-pick: metaphysics asks "why" before the prerequisites for science even exist. :smile: :up:

To separate philosophy from science is to make science a religion. They think they have eliminated metaphysics from physics, but all they have done is blind themselves to the metaphysics in physics. They often believe they are dealing with the fundamental constituents of existence, and that there is no belief involved in their conclusions or in the reasonings that lead to their conclusions. They are not aware of their metaphysical beliefs, and it takes some philosophizing to uncover them. Without philosophy they just react like a cult — leo

:lol: Yes! :up:

It seems really ridiculous to the point that you may get banned or silenced if one attempts to discuss these things in these circles, as though they were a cult of scientism or something akin to that (I don't mean any offense to them by that, it's just difficult to properly label these sorts of behavior). — Shushi

I left my last forum, now defunct, for exactly this reason. I was told that "non-scientific" topics were unsuitable for discussion. Such topics were trolled and treated with derision - even by our moderators! - with the intention of preventing their discussion. And this in a supposedly philosophical forum, not a specifically scientific one.

Do scientists have an irrational bias against philosophy, specifically philosophy of science? — Shushi

I don't think so. The people you refer to are sciencists. They have become enamoured of their own discipline, to the extent that they have come to believe that science is the One and Only Tool that is acceptable for intellectual inquiry. They are zealots, nothing more. The worrying thing is that today, in the world of Trump, Brexit and fake news, their viewpoint is becoming accepted in the wider world. This, I think, we should oppose, where and how we can. :chin:

Well, then, self-contradiction still remains for disproving. — PoeticUniverse

:chin: Er, what?