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?

nastyn8
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 06/27/09 - 09:02 AM: Subject: Metaphysics, is it worth it?	#1
Well, I've been debating with a good friend of mine for a while now about whether or not metaphysics and epistemology have any real ground in the scientific community. What reason should we have to believe that we can explain the unexplainable, let alone, back it up with scientific evidence? All thoughts and further questions relating to this topic are welcome, I'm just trying to initiate some discussion/debate on this.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 06/27/09 - 11:20 AM:	#2
Studying metaphysics has proven useful in real world applications, for example, many famous physicists took metaphysical stances. Einstein is perhaps the most famous/infamous for this with over a hundred quotes of him saying "God" does and does not do this, that, and the other thing. On the other hand, Bhorr once shouted "Shut up and calculate!" to a metaphysical querry. Considering the utility of both positions and the fact that we can suppodidly never resolve the issue once and for all, the question arises as to why should we exclude either?

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 06/27/09 - 12:00 PM:	#3
If metaphysics resolves perplexity and shows the way to further action (or inaction), then I think it is time well spent. Otherwise, I think one can find better and more exciting puzzlement in literature and art. Munch's "The Scream" says more to me about angst than generations of continental philosophers, and the only existentialist I have time for is Camus.
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

Apathy Kills
Decaying Organic Matter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2007
Location: United States, MIDWEST

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 232

Posted 06/27/09 - 01:23 PM:	#4
True, metaphysics has some of the most interesting questions apart from all the other branches in philosophy and many of our time-honored thinkers, like Einstein, have made very apt and influential metaphysical claims. Yet, in the history of philosophy, there are several philosophers who have responded negatively to metaphysics. Hume, for instance, believed such things should be "committed to the flames, for it contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." Contemporary philosophers, such as A.J. Ayer, had similar sentiments. But, of course, this is coming from heavily Analytic thinkers - continental philosophers like Heidegger believed the questions of metaphysics (specifically, the question of being) are the most important questions to ask in philosophy. Marchhare wrote: Munch's "The Scream" says more to me about angst than generations of continental philosophers... I don't know.... I, for one, experienced a good dose of anguish when first tackling the writings of Hegel, Heidegger, and Derrida.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..." Nietzsche

ms anthropist
successful failure

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2006
Location: on the highest horse

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 378

Posted 06/27/09 - 01:43 PM:	#5
I think that the value of epistemology is to question the fundations of knowledge, this is essential for critical thinking. Metaphysics on the other hand...not sure...I suppose that in a postmodern way they come to attest that anything goes. That is why you need epistemology

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2102

Posted 06/27/09 - 04:10 PM:	#6
Metaphysics, is it worth it? To whom? "Whatever interests is interesting," as the saying goes. We do not know -- and let no one tell you otherwise -- what can and cannot be done in the field of metaphysics. No matter how bright or bleak the future of the field may seem to some person or another, their predictions cannot take account of what brilliant realizations may be yet to come in the history of philosophy. Perhaps there is only so far that any metaphysical inquiry can go, but if one is interested in that inquiry -- or even just the very question of how far it can go -- then what reason is there for anyone to say that one is wasting his time pursuing it? Everything is a waste of time to someone (many primitivists, for example, would deny the value of all science and technology). But I see no reason to determine my life by someone else's preferences. nastyn8 wrote: Well, I've been debating with a good friend of mine for a while now about whether or not metaphysics and epistemology have any real ground in the scientific community. Metaphysics and epistemology are branches of philosophy, not science. While science might reveal things that have implications for one or the other, it wouldn't matter one bit if they didn't. Moreover, epistemology is essential to science (at least in its present incarnation). Because if we are to say that science gives us any knowledge of the truth, we had better understand what knowledge and truth are (which requires epistemology). And scientists love dipping their beaks into metaphysics. It was Minkowski, for example, who convinced Einstein to marry his theory of relativity to the metaphysical doctrine of eternalism (something that never quite sat right with Einstein and is questioned more and more all the time). But of course, if relativity really does give support to eternalism, then here we have a metaphysical doctrine grounded in (but not entirely constituted by) science. And debates about free will, the existence of God, and any number of other metaphysical topics make constant reference to scientific evidence. And such debates involve participants from many communities -- philosophical and scientific included. nastyn8 wrote: What reason should we have to believe that we can explain the unexplainable, let alone, back it up with scientific evidence? It is a very common prejudice that metaphysics concerns "the unexplainable." In fact, metaphysics is about the underlying nature of the universe -- that which is behind the observed phenomena of science. It may be that we cannot solve certain fundamental questions in metaphysics, but this is not to say that the whole of metaphysics is unexplainable. And it would simply beg the question to try and define it as such.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

180 Proof
kynic

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

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5116

Posted 06/27/09 - 08:06 PM:	#7
Metaphysics concerns either 'what must be the case' or 'how we must conceptualize whatever is the case' and 'why (either) is not otherwise'. These are not scientific concerns because they cannot be tested in any way. Metaphysics is just poetry composed of arguments instead of images. As an intellectual exercise -- like crossword (or mathematical) puzzles -- it's not a waste of time especially if one has metaphysical itches to scratch; it can sharpen one's dialectic, and one may even acquire the habit of viewing the world, or one's life, like an artist from an aesthetic distance without ever practicing an art. "Philosophical contemplation has no other intention than to eliminate the accidental." -- G.W.F. Hegel "Art is the elimination of the unnecessary." -- Pablo Picasso Maybe we ought to take the word of a great metaphysician & great artist with a brick of salt but I still wouldn't discard the affinity of their respective insights ... Edited by 180 Proof on 07/05/09 - 07:49 PM. Reason: grammar ...
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?]]]

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4148

Posted 06/27/09 - 09:37 PM:	#8
These are scientific concerns when it comes to creating theories. The example David gave of the bizarre behavior of particles is actually a good argument for the scientific value of metaphysics. Heisenberg's personal metaphysics were unusual for a westerner and meshed perfectly with his Indeterminacy Principle. No doubt someone somewhere would have eventually discovered the principle, but he was one of the few at the time working on the front lines. In fact, the theory was deduced from Einstein's work on the photo-electric effect some twenty years ealier and he expressed dismay that he had not come up with the theory himself. Perhaps if he had been less classically oriented he might have.

Ich Werde
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 66

Posted 06/28/09 - 01:14 AM:	#9
Of course this conclusion is very common. Why argue on the existence of a unicorrn if they don't exist or such. But using metaphysics you can explore a deeper form of thought testing, you can put yoursef in a situation that is impossible, but yet logical. It allows the subject to test different view points without being limited to his potential. Like the teapot theory. A bigger question is philosophy worth it? I see it the same as metaphysics.

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2102

Posted 06/28/09 - 06:25 PM:	#10
180 Proof wrote: Metaphysics concerns either 'what must be the case' or 'how must we conceptualize whatever is the case' and 'why (either) is not otherwise'. Rather than having us talk past one another for three months only to discover we have different ways of saying basically the same thing, I'm going to ask how you would analyze or categorize what might be called hybrid or border cases in which philosophers investigate what follows from the combination of what must be the case and what has been observed to be the case. Typically/historically/traditionally, these have been grouped in with metaphysics -- which would be contrary to your definition. Would you place them elsewhere? And is this simply a matter of personal definitions (that is, how you prefer to organize the philosophical landscape)? (And since you'll probably want examples, modern discussions of philosophy of time, the existence of God, and free will all seem to involve both metaphysical and scientific considerations in many instances. There are others, but those are perhaps the most familiar ones.) 180 Proof wrote: These are not scientific concerns because they cannot be tested in any way. Empirically tested, you mean. We can test claims logically as well, you know (e.g., for consistency). 180 Proof wrote: "Philosophical contemplation has no other intention than to eliminate the accidental." -- G.W.F. Hegel "Art is the elimination of the unnecessary." -- Pablo Picasso Maybe we ought to take the word of a great metaphysician & great artist with a brick of salt but I still wouldn't discard the affinity of their respective insights ... Except that they're talking about different things. Hegel was talking about the tendency of philosophers to focus on the general, rather than the particular; the essence, as opposed to the existence. Picasso was talking about the historical and cultural trends in aesthetics running contrary to the detail-oriented ideals of Realism/Representationalism; the impression, rather than the reality. The real affinity between the two quotes is that both men were glossing quite a bit in favor of their own interests.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

Page: 1 2

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