Metaphysics, is it worth it?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Metaphysics, is it worth it? » Metaphysics, is it worth it?

Metaphysics, is it worth it?
A discussion on the scientific ground of metaphysics.

Page: 1 2

Metaphysics, is it worth it?

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5051

Posted 06/28/09 - 08:33 PM:	#11
@ Postmodern Beatnik -- I'm afraid my answers will disappoint. (Nothing new there.) "Hybrid or border cases" where "what must be the case" and "what has been observed to be the case" overlap (i.e. clash), while contemplated by philosophers, are not what scientific research & exploration consists in and thus, as far as I can tell, are not grist for scientists' mill. By "scientific" I mean (at minimum) physically testable ...; 'logical tests', on the other hand, are only factors in constructing consistent experiments and assessing any implications thereof. Furthermore, I find that "modern discussions of philosophy of time, the existence of God, and free will" are philosophical insofar as they undertake conceptual analysis and scientific insofar as they (can) apply said concepts to physically testable hypotheses. "Hybrid or border cases" that can be disambiguated into respective philosophical & scientific concerns might be of consequence (i.e. experimentally) in the sciences; those that cannot be disambiguated, however, remain solely the province of philosophers, or metaphysicians. As for my Hegel & Picasso quotes: I'll let your remarks stand without reply since the point of them escapes me. Edited by 180 Proof on 06/29/09 - 02:17 AM. Reason: nada ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

knowitall
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 18, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 15

Posted 07/01/09 - 07:01 AM:	#12
Where do you draw the line between science and metaphysics? A number of today’s scientific answers were once metaphysical questions. In addition, for many physicists what we laypeople regard as the leading edge of physics crosses the border into metaphysics. For instance, supersymmetry and string theory cannot as yet be empirically validated. The latter is dismissed by some in the scientific community as metaphysics masquerading as physics. It could be argued that the multiverse hypothesis is simply cosmologists trying to extend their domain into metaphysics in order to explain the origin of our universe. Such purely theoretical hypotheses represent possible interpretations of the world around us that happen to be embraced by the people who brought us the empirically validated theories of quantum mechanics and relativity. The scientific community’s infatuation with certain theoretical hypotheses has a significant aesthetic component. As such, beyond the use of arcane mathematics, how is purely theoretical scientific speculation different from “non-scientific” metaphysical thought?

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2059

Posted 07/01/09 - 09:19 AM:	#13
180 Proof wrote: "Hybrid or border cases" where "what must be the case" and "what has been observed to be the case" overlap (i.e. clash), while contemplated by philosophers, are not what scientific research & exploration consists in and thus, as far as I can tell, are not grist for scientists' mill. I'm not sure why you say "clash." I'm talking about instances in which philosophers take (non-contradictory) information from two different sources and then try to figure out what follows from -- or is made more probable by -- the combination. I agree that it is still philosophy, but I was more curious about whether you would still consider it metaphysics -- especially since "figuring out what is probably the case given the combination of what must be the case and what has been observed to be the case" seems contrary to your earlier description of metaphysics as dealing with either "what must be the case" or "how we must conceptualize whatever is the case." 180 Proof wrote: Furthermore, I find that "modern discussions of philosophy of time, the existence of God, and free will" are philosophical insofar as they undertake conceptual analysis and scientific insofar as they (can) apply said concepts to physically testable hypotheses. "Hybrid or border cases" that can be disambiguated into respective philosophical & scientific concerns might be of consequence (i.e. experimentally) in the sciences; those that cannot be disambiguated, however, remain solely the province of philosophers, or metaphysicians. This is all fine with me. In fact, I'm not quite sure why you thought your response would be disappointing...
"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination." --Voltaire

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5051

Posted 07/01/09 - 11:33 PM:	#14
knowitall wrote: As such, beyond the use of arcane mathematics, how is purely theoretical scientific speculation different from “non-scientific” metaphysical thought? I suppose the difference corresponds to what you mean by "scientific" & "non-scientific". Postmodern Beatnik wrote: This is all fine with me.
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

arthurfex
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 13

Posted 07/10/09 - 08:58 AM:	#15
I think metaphysics, as far as science is concerned, is going to take the form of exploring the electromagnetic fields of our universe and how they affect us. There is still a lot that is unknown about this. Also the dream chemical DMT (Dimetholtryptamine) could also play a big part in what we call metaphysics. Our dreams are very important to us and to understand more about then and whay we have them could open up a lot of doors into what we are really dreaming about. Everything, even metaphysical things, can be explained using empirical data.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.