>metaphysics is dead
When will this shit meme end?
>>729846
It was never alive in the first place.
>>729955
a forced meme for sure
What is the most recent result that metaphysicists have come with that has changed our understanding of the universe.
>>730011
Science.
>>730014
Grasping straws it is then.
>>730011
>metaphysicists
Read a book
>>730017
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Good introduction, bruh.
>>729955
+1
Just a half assed excuse for theists to keep espousing their nonsense.
>>730030
you have zero reading comprehension.
>>730030
>metaphysicians are all theists
>theists are all metaphysicians
You really do know nothing.
>>730011
I find it really funny how the consensus opinion on this board seems to be railing against positivism while denigrating metaphysics. I imagine it's because people like you misunderstand the goals of science (physics). The sooner you realize physics provides models of reality, and not descriptions of reality as such, the sooner you'll rescue yourself from the bowels of pure pretentious ignorance
>>730011
>metaphysics hasn't resulted in technological advances, therefore it's wrong
Never mind the fallacy in this argument, but uh do you even know what metaphysics is? lol
>>730049
It's certainly given them more ground. The there "there" is where they try to deposit god.
>>730285
>theists think god is metaphysical
w-wow... really?
Whenever metaphysics produces actual testable predictions
>>730312
>metaphysics
>empirically testable
MUH SCIENCE MUH SCIENCE MUH SCIENCE MUH SCIENCE MUH MUH MUH MUH MUH MUH
>>730232
Do you really think physicists don't know they're modeling reality? Have you ever discussed with an actual physicits instead of berating about Dawkings, Sam Harris or Bill Nye? You seem to think comprehending that is some kind of secret to plebs but it is taught in every basic lab or mechanics course and pretty much everyone gets it except they are some fedora tipper faggot.
>>730243
Did he ever mentioned technology? There are many products of art that have changed the world or how we look at it, when has metaphysics done this?
>>730329
>putting 'muh' in front of something instantly invalidates it
And this is why no one takes metaphysics seriously anymore
>>730301
Some do, oh what a shocker! Every Apologist I've ever listened to made a metaphysical appeal at some point.
>>730336
>trying to quantify the intangible effects of a system of thought
DUDE WHEN HAS LOVE EVER DONE ANYTHING FOR SOCIETY LMAO
Jesus Christ has it ever occurred to you we're talking about truth and not utility?
>>730361
> even an argument against spirituality?
No, spirituality, on theological terms, is sufficiently full of shit to collapse unto itself. No more work needed on the secular front.
>>730357
>quantify
You are changing my post to other obviously retarded arguments because that seems to be the only thing that you can respond to. I'm stating basically why it is important to continue the pursuit of this field and what evidence as in essays, books ideas can be shown that the field should continue. You can do this with art, why philosotards seem to always struggle responding something so simple?
>>730466
>>convince me the search and understanding of the determining principles of the universe is worthwhile
That sound to some extent what physics does, and even if it is just models, this models have done far more than any other way of thinking. Could you please give me a fucking example of a better suited way to find this things? Has any philosopher given any sort of alternative?
>>730492
Physics describes the system, it doesn't tell us what the system is. Intuitive apprehension of reality is the only way to understand reality as such. Reason is the grasping of dead things, properties and behaviors, intuition is the grasping of what-is through consciousnesses. You can only experience it. Experience trumps pure logic, as even the most elaborate empirical structure is ultimately self-refuting and built on sand.
>>730525
Yes I understand that point, but then What is the consensus of what reality is?
Again, I'm asking for an alternative explanation not just the problem of taking scientific results are underlying truths.
Also, we can only define things based on other languages so why can't a description be used as a method for defining reality, if even math needs the aid of English or math itself to be properly defined?
>>730011
Metaphysics is nessary for high level science and interpretation of the universe.
It's only scientifically illiterate empiricist fedoras that think otherwise.
Here are 4 real quantum physicists discussing Greek metaphysics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKPDRKg_0rA
>>730376
Not my job. Oh wonder, I had a profound emotional experience, and because of that I'm supposed to take your case for theism more seriously. Don't ever put the real burden of proof on me again.
>>730561
It is not necessary but it can be interesting. They are discussing things that really have no impact in a lab but in the formalizm of quantum theory
>>730582
Theory is where you need to start from. You need a frame of reference for contextualizing anything.
Modern quantum and particle physics is not differentiable from metaphysics. Its a physics seperate from our own that yet still influences us.
The only difference is that we dont fucking talk about causality anymore, and thank god for that.
>>730560
Without getting into it, the nature of reality is consciousness. It is derived from a transcendent consciousness and with matter as a substrate, births atomized consciousnesses. This transcendent consciousness has its origins in the ineffable, what's necessarily beyond all categories of existence.
>>730621
I think you are confusing terms. Laws of nature are were you start from and you develop particular theories theough empirical data. The name quantum theory is just a name. Also, frame of reference has a different meaning.
>>730652
There has been many advances in neuroscience that whow a real understanding of our consciousness. We can even delete specific memories which would have a huge epistemological impact as thoughts could have a defined space.
>>730654
I am not saying that metaphysics is separate from the laws of nature, it's a way of interpreting it, taking all seemingly unrelated things and putting to all together. Spinoza was respected among Einstein and Hawking.
Metaphysics has an unfortunate reputation as being related to voodoo.
>>730336
>>730352
Another fine display of ignorance. Those "shitty" interpretations were formulated by actual physicists who were interested in the foundational questions and metaphysical implications of their work. It's a worthwhile enterprise that has produced results in the past (Bell's Theorem). Most of the physicists you listed are barely physicists, and Dawkins is a fucking biologist.
>>730680
I know, I was just telling you to be careful with thise terms in particular to avoid sounding like voodoo when talking about physics.
>>730688
>reading comprehension
>>730698
using meme arrows isn't an argument. Physicists are aware that their work is a model, and those who do either ignore the metaphysics or acknowledge its role (hence the philosophy of physics as an actual line of research). It's the people who constantly rag on metaphysics as "irrelevant" or supplanted by developments in physics that don't understand this.
>>730707
I was asking why it is relevant and I got nothing neer to an answer. However interpreting and "understanding" the universe has resulted in pretty anti-scientific jargon.
>>730670
Uh, so. Did I say fairies are responsible for consciousness or something
>>730680
>Metaphysics has an unfortunate reputation as being related to voodoo.
It's not unearned.
>>730767
>However interpreting and "understanding" the universe has resulted in pretty anti-scientific jargon.
Isn't the goal of science to understand and interpret the universe? At what point did science simply become an exercise in repetition? Science was once called natural philosophy because that's what it was supposed to be concerned with, understanding the world. It came into its own because the scientific method was enormously successful in acquiring and repeating experimental results. Now any talk of interpretations and understanding is frowned upon. It comes down to what the goal of science actually is, and it seems to have strayed far from its initial intent.
>>730770
No but if consciousness is reality, then how come it is embedded itself in reality. It must then be a higher ontological "reality" to fit it.
>>730793
Because understanding it doesn't mean that it should appeal to human logic and intuition. At least for a physicist. So there is no human way to understand quantum mechanics because reality has no need to address humans logical principles.
>>730793
The goal of science is to describe (and predict) the universe, with the implication being that as predictions become more accurate they must be based on models that more accurately mimic the actual mechanics of the universe. Trying to "understand" things directly leads to fluff like >>730652 which sounds nice but doesn't actually mean anything.
>>730810
Just because you can't grok it doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything
Metaphysics and /phil/ don't belong on this board.
>>>/x/
>>730652
>muh 10$ words
>muh whatever the fuck you just said
M8, you are shit. Your unorganized religion is shit. Fuck off
>>730820
>being willfully ignorant and proud of it
>>730826
>sputing bullshit faggotry
>n-no, u ignorant
>>730808
Just because the reality underlying something like quantum mechanics is counter intuitive doesn't mean it's impossible to understand. Plenty of counter intuitive results have been established thus far and there are interpretations to account for that.
>>730810
>with the implication being that as predictions become more accurate they must be based on models that more accurately mimic the actual mechanics of the universe
I don't think that's the case. For instance, someone like Newton who comes along and gives a description of the effect that the gravitational force has on objects can get along easily with the mathematics without making any attempt to understand what gravity actually is (as he certainly made no attempt to do). Same with Einstein and relativity, where we can use the curvature tensor to calculate how objects move in regards to the geometry of spacetime, without making any attempt to uncover whether there actually is any spacetime or if matter simply acts as if it's curved. Same with quantum mechanics. Science has moved away from ontology and focuses primarily on the formalism without any concern as to what there is.
>>730831
>calling Neoplatonism bullshit faggotry
Pseud detected
>>730014
Even if that bullshit were true, it'd mean it was useless for 400 years
>>730839
>calling neo-whatever the fuck is the /his/ equivalent of pretending to be patrician horseshit
>get faggots like you butthert
>>730243
Do you often address irrelevant/ irrelevant fallacies when responding to questions?
>>730844
Dude epic, tips fedora, we are all but stardust, the universe don't be like it do but it be, etc.
>>730376
Then why are you trying so hard to argue against it, while also failing and dancing around the topic.
The concept of God is a logical concept. Conjecture, sure, but you basically saw that people say God is metaphysical, and then screaming that all of metaphysics is wrong and useless because the concept of God exists within it.
Related note: Those who try to argue against the concept of God are simply egotistical, their monkey brains refusing to admit that they're not the center of reality and that their logic and knowledge of severely limited.
>>730011
Metaphysics has evolved to "merely" interpret rather than discover
>>730835
If matter universally acts as though there is a curved spacetime, what does it mean that it isn't "actually" there?
You're all a bunch of shitflinging morons who don't have any leg to stand on.
>>730849
>pretends to adhere to some faggot school of thought no one gives creed to
>pretends to be a cultured man
>calls others fedora
>>730856
>>730858
Stay mad
>>730860
Ebin
>>730835
Tell me the current metaphysical interpretation of electromagnetism.
>>730860
>>730835
Give me on example of a metaphysician who discovered something of not while metaphysicing around. You literally can't
You pretty much can't avoid some degree of metaphysical claims, but if you seriously think your dogmatist bullshit is acceptable because of that then fuck you.
>>730873
Jesus Christ you don't "discover" metaphysics you retard you extrapolate from our understanding of reality now to first principles, it's not that hard to wrap your head around you dip
>>730854
Space/time could be relational, as Einstein believed it to be, or space/time could be substantial, where it is an entity that exists in its own right over and above the matter that occupies it. It remains an open question and there are plenty of arguments, like John Earman's hole argument or Newton's bucket argument, for and against it respectively.
>>730867
I actually addressed this very question on this board once. There is no agreement on whether there actually is an electromagnetic field, or if it's just a useful tool for scientists. Which only goes further in validating my point. They don't care about the ontology.
>>730879
You extrapolate using discoveries that model reality.
>>730879
How do you measure shit? How do you know you're not just on drugs? Or that some fag who metaphysicaned(i.e. Nietzsche) around wasn't just a fucking nuts. Which Nietzsche was, by all accounts. Give me one example of its use other than circlejerk intellectual masturbation.
>>730882
>It remains an open question and there are plenty of arguments, like John Earman's hole argument or Newton's bucket argument, for and against it respectively.
Could someone make a discovery that would tip the scale in either direction?
>>730897
We'll never know if we continue to dismiss it as useless metaphysics, will we?
>>730896
Nietzsche was largely hostile to metaphysics.
>>730904
Answer the question. Could someone devise an experiment that measured some value that, if valid, would tip the scales?
>>730908
OK. Kant. He wasn't was he? Explain to me how what he did wasn't just mental gymnastics for pretentious cocksuckers.
>>730912
Maybe. My point is simply that it does no good to disregard it. It's certainly not an attitude that contributes anything towards our understanding of the world. Science, up to this point, has had nothing to say either way on the reality of space and/or time. It's a matter of interpretation. Perhaps one day it won't be.
>>730913
If you don't get it, it doesn't mean it's pretentious
>>730926
So many weasel words out there I expect I R baboon to show up. The answer is no. Fuck off.
>>730932
So you can't
>>730937
The answer is not no. It's not a clear cut yes or no because we simply don't know. There are plenty of respectable philosopher of physics who are working on the question right now. Don't be such an ignoramus.
>>730926
>Maybe
Maybe as in someone might come up with it and it's a matter of having the right instruments and the right person in the right frame of mind and it's a question of whether it's practically possible (even if nobody does end up coming up with it), or maybe as in it's a question of whether it's inherently possible?
>>730945
Examples. Proof. Until then, the answer is 'no'.
>>730941
I can try, but do I want to spend my time typing up a thoughtful post to disabuse snooty 4chan fuckboy #??? of his pop sci caracitatures of continental philosophy? Nah, I don't.
>>730960
>i can try
I'm actually listening. Go ahead.
>>730962
>Those are all serious possibilities.
If it's the first, then you're not doing metaphysics, you are generating possible hypothesis that you alter intend to test through experiment. This is not a field onto itself but a regular part of the scientific method as applied to physics. If it is the second, then metaphysics IS inherently meaningless, because there is no actual way to distinguish an accurate statement from a non-accurate one
>>730962
Because "maybe it will" is not an answer. Maybe Jesus will come back tomorrow. Maybe the Celts had it right. Maybe.
>knowledge for knowledge's sake
I do like that. You trying to prove that metaphysics has IRL application is ridiculous to the point of retarded. I know history is not very useful, but I like it more than anything else either way.
>>730970
Right now, the ontological status of spacetime is a metaphysical question. If at some point in the future an answer is established one way or the other then it becomes physics, but even with that you are confirming a particular metaphysical viewpoint regarding scientific theories, namely, scientific realism/structural realism.
>>730971
I have never tried to argue that metaphysics has any practical applications. I readily acknowledge that it probably does not. But that doesn't make it worthless or irrelevant or uninteresting.
>>730983
OK, so we agree.
>>730994
yeah, we agree. What I've been arguing is that inquiring into metaphysical questions is not a worthless endeavor, as so many people (physicists and non-physicists alike) seem to suggest.
>>730913
Kant was too.
Try Leibniz or something.
>>730983
>If at some point in the future an answer is established one way or the other then it becomes physics,
So why are we introducing this arbitrary distinction between the hypothesis-forming portion of physics and the experimental portion? Why not apply this same division to, say, biology or geology? Is it just a historical artefact preserved for tradition's sake?
>>730964
What do you want me to say? You look at reality, you meditate, you contemplate. and through self-knowledge you come to have a deeper knowledge of the universe in its foundational principles because after all you're part of reality too.
The bedrock of all spirituality is mindfulness in the present. This makes you engage with something for its own sake, totally in the present, and so you gain a greater appreciation for Being, for the fact of your existing in the first place, instead of Becoming, doing shit, stressing shit, feeling like something outside must complete you. Geothe said, "what is important is not a cause of life but life itself". In other words, essence over process, journey over destination. From this we understand nothing external can truly fulfill us. From this we understand only inner validation can save us, only we can save ourselves. From this we understand the true, liberated consciousness is self-sufficient, aloof, sublime in its detachment. From this we understand what we consider good and noble has always exhibited these qualities. From this we see the plenitude of reality, all these forms inexplicably created without the determining principle ever asking anything in return, the life principle is in the world but not OF it. The same applies to the sage. From this we understand the origin of the universe must be of this transcendent, unsullied nature, and that the qualities of the enlightened being reflect universal qualities in its power, depth, and stoic equaniminity. In other words matter is imperfect, and because what creates matter is NOT matter, we can not expect it to be subject to degeneration, corruption, tempirality. When we live in accordance with these principles, life starts working out. Spiritual health is closely intertwined with the embodying of these qualities, and so the good of the soul reflects the basic goodness of reality, goodness not as a moral quality but as a state worth aspiring towards.
>>731014
I wouldn't call it arbitrary. Physics and metaphysics study different things and sometimes there happens to be overlap. Ontology is a branch of metaphysics and the ontology of spacetime, for example, is a question specific to the philosophy of physics that some physicists aren't necessarily interested in. Physicist study how things work, metaphysicians inquire into what things are.
>>731022
>Physicist study how things work, metaphysicians inquire into what things are.
Here's the problem. How are you inquiring into "what things are"? You can't be testing it, otherwise suddenly metaphysics would be turning into physics. How are you confirming anything?
>>730312
History isn't testable, but you still don't mind getting on a history board...
>>731045
History is testable, just that the evidence is far more difficult to find so it is not that accurate.
>>731031
>if it cannot be analyzed emperically it's worthless
Do we really need to go through the same routine every-time of reminding your that empiricism is not capable of justifying itself and is only workable in a specific situations?
Is this really just another case of axiomatically assuming the position of positivism with no justifiable reason that has been played out a million times on this board?
>>731056
Answer the question. How are you confirming anything?
>>731031
Metaphysics, generally, is the study of what there is. There are certain assumptions you can hold about the world that are metaphysical: realism, antirealism, etc, etc. If we're talking pure philosophy of physics here, with its substantial overlap with metaphysics, then an inquiry is very much looks like an interpretive matter. An extrapolation from results that we have obtained through experiment. That's why there are interpretations to quantum mechanics and so on.
Are you confirming anything? You certainly can narrow the options. John Bell took inspiration from interpretations of QM and set out to prove certain metaphysical assumptions wrong and left us with no choice but to dispel with the metaphysical notion of local realism. So yes, experimental metaphysics is possible, and it very much straddles the line between physics and metaphysics.
>>731056
What if those specific cases are the only relevant cases you can gather knowledge from?
>>730810
>The goal of science is to describe (and predict) the universe, with the implication being that as predictions become more accurate they must be based on models that more accurately mimic the actual mechanics of the universe.
Yeah, but now, try to do it with your soul, because control is only a mean, not an end.
>>731053
Wouldn't you be assuming uniformitarianism?
>>731071
Bell's experiments had nothing to do with metaphysics. Also interpretations of QM is also not metaphysics.
>>731077
Im asuming that every fucking historian uses sources to justify theie claims
>>731080
yes it did. Local realism, nonlocality, and so on are all metaphysical notions about the fundamental constitution of the world. Interpretations of the quantum are studied under the philosophy of physics. Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, and many others all acknowledged that they were metaphysics. Have you ever read anything on the subject?
>>731080
>Also interpretations of QM is also not metaphysics
they depend on metaphysics though
>>731073
Epistmology is how to figure what knowledge you are getting.
If you are making the argument that empiricism is the only valid case of epistemology (this is called positvism) than for your idea to work out empiricism would have to explain why it is true and other positions are invalid. If you cannot do this (ie use the scientific method to justify itself) than you have already conceded the point that knowledge can be obtained outside of empiricism. And the very knowledge that is obtained outside empiricism is what is being used to justify empiricism in the first place. So all the scientific empiricism would be completely dependent on non-scientific knowledge.
We go through this discussion all the time.
READ LAVELLE
E
A
D
L
A
V
E
L
L
E
I N T E R N E T
M E TAPHYSIC
>>731071
The more you describe it, it seems like metaphysics is useful where it intersects with actual physics. If we're limiting the discussion to those specific contexts, fine, but the field should probably do some housecleaning to dissociate itself from voodoo.
>>731096
Religion is something much more relevant to society than science. Not him.
>>731096
The metaphysical implications of physics is still metaphysics. And I wouldn't go so far as to label "traditional" metaphysical questions as voodoo.
>>731077
Do you think geology is an illusion or do you mean uniformitarianism in society?
Uniformity of social dynamics isn't necessary for there still to be testable theories, and explaining social change would be a key goal for a theory of history.
>>731085
I've read more than your pop sci Deepak Chopra Garbage. Locality in physics is really not the same as in philosophy. Read a proper QM texbook.
>>731092
Then how come other ways of knowing have pretty much given us crap compared to empiricism? I always start asking what has that particular way of knowing shown us? And I always get bullshit answer that refer to science.
>>731112
>Do you think geology is an illusion
Not at all, and I know it's normally only creationists who bring it up, but it is an assumption of geology, though it certainly seems to be true.
>>731115
The problem seems to arise when people confuse metaphysics with spirituality or something similar when that's not what it is at all. As I stated in my very first post in this thread, people misunderstand metaphysics and its relationship to physics
>>731114
I've read more than your pop sci Deepak Chopra Garbage. Locality in physics is really not the same as in philosophy. Read a proper QM texbook.
Clearly you haven't read enough. Locality is a principle that states an object can only be directly influenced by its immediate surroundings. Philosophy only deals with locality when it comes to the implications of Bell's Theorem.
>>731137
The implications of Bell's experiments is that there are non local phebomena which doesn't violate the fundamental principles of QM and SR.
>>731114
We have had the ways of life and cultures for countless eras justified for non-empirical knowledge. The entire direction humanity takes has always been decided by non-empirical ideas: wars, cultural movements, the shape of social instituations, motivations, ideaologies, group identities etc. And you are seriously asking what you got? The entire scientific process is assembled and updated based on non-empirical philosophy. And than the marvelous inventions that come out of it have their usage, limitations, and purpose all defined by non-empirical philosophy.
>>731162
But we don't consider ways of life, cultural movements or wars as universal truths but part of our complex social structures. The fact that we act certain ways and what do we value is being investigated by serious Neurologists. And considering that we humans are but a miniscule fraction of the universe it makes our assertions about humanity pretty specific and weak compared to universal truths. Yes it is important that we study ourselves if we want to keep advancing, but that is far from having other ways of knowing the same shit.
>>731180
Tip tip cheerio
>>731156
That's incorrect. Nonlocality is one interpretation of Bell's Theorem. You can choose to abandon counterfactual definiteness (realism) instead, or accept superdeterminism. And if you do choose nonlocality, you're accepting the existence of a benign form that, while not allowing for a violatiom of relativistic causation, does allow for the existence of some kind of superluminal influence.
Metaphysics is a load of bull. We all know that all mental processes are affected by physical processes. A damage to the retina ceases the function of sight. Likewise, brain damage results in unimpaired cognitive capabilities. There is nothing immaterial from which the material springs forth.
The only thing that ever made me think was, when I once read this somewhere:
"supposing a man recieves a note written in a language he doesn't understand, the light hits his retina and he scans the language and so no movement corresponding to the language is made in his brain... but now suppose that the same man actually did know the language beforehand; he still recieves the same light but the movements corresponding to understanding the text are now working"
and that's how I discovered automatic control systems.
>>731180
>universal truths
If you would like to make the statement that
a) there are universal truths
b) they are knowable
c) only science can tell them it
please give evidence for this. You are taking certain philosophical positions and just holding them as axiomatic. (and if you need to use non-imperialism to justify you've already shown us that empiricism has severe limitations)
Just to give you an idea about other possibilities Kant's Thing-in-itself idea is that the real universe can never be known, we can only now our interpretation of it, so the universe we interact with is a mental version of the universe. In other words absolute truth is inaccessible. That's not to say it's correct but that's it another model.
All you have done is assert MASSIVE ideas as being axiomatically true with zero evidence. And since you have made the assertion that the only worthwhile study of knowledge is empiricism all your evidence would have to empirical to not be self-contradicting.
>>731220
Fucking hell, I meant physical truths about the universe you philosophers cling to the only epistemological shit you can debate. And there is two things to that question.
1 Empiricism has worked really fucking well considering all the problems and wholes with its philosophical foundation. It may be anti intelectual to say it just werks but it really does. And because we have statistics that is baed upon deductive reasoning we can even deduct how wrong we are. And it may not answer all our questions and it cannot prove that it is all a grand illusion but we must start somewhere and the evidence that empiricism can get us somewhere is massive. Which brings me to my second point
2 Even if you can consider alternatives, why would you? Why would you not align with the set of assumptions that have given more results than any other field combine which is aided with the best use of valid logical reasoning which is mathematics? I'm not denying other possibilities, but why should I consider them knowing how effective empiricism has been and any other method really is subpar when compared. You asked for evidence which there are tons of it in all STEm subjects, but modern academic philosophers are concerned about how it is oppressive to women if a man spread his legs open. For me the choice is pretty clear.
>>730858
No, dude, you really have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Most people like assume assume science is the be-all and end-all of knowledge, without grasping the fact that it fails to analyse what exactly knowledge *is.*
Science = understanding the world
Philosophy/metaphysics = understanding understanding.
Take 8 hits of LSD and come back to us when you know what we're actually talking about.
>>731020
Fedoras #BTFO
>>731298
But has understanding understanding ever contradicted science? History tells us it was the other way around.
>>731312
Dude, you're still not getting it. They're not "in competition," they actually fully complement each other.
You might as well say, I dunno, "well being able to read every resulted in better flavours in food?" Obviously being able to read itself will by itself never result in better tasting food, but the ability to do so can allow one to follow a recipe and become a cook and eventually *come up* with a tasty dish. In this analogy cooking is science, whereas being able to read is philosophy.
>>731325
Your analogy makes a point but many times empirical data has made philosophical inquiry obsolete.
>>731272
>completly dodging the question
> You asked for evidence which there are tons of it in all STEm subjects
Of course there is evidence, but it's not empirical. And if you are agreeing with me on this you have actually conceding the fucking you made made about how empiricism is the only worthwhile source of knowledge.
> I meant physical truths about the universe you philosophers cling to the only epistemological shit you can debate
When you say universial truths do you mean truths about the universe (physics, etc) or absolute truth?
I'll answer both questions.
If you meant physics questions than yes. I've already said science and emperisism is good for a specific field. If you want to go outside that field well than buster you were the one that decided to step foot into the icky philophical places.
If you meant universal as in absolute truth. Than again you were the one stepping into the philosophical realm. Who is right about the nature of the observer and the observered? Is it Nietzsche's perspectivism? Kant's thing in-it-self? Platoism? Well either way you are in a field way past empiricism. And this field is absolutely necessary in saying what the nature of truth is. It's going to define the very of what is discovered and what you are looking for. These are deep epistmological problems. Since science is just applied epistemology this is a big thing.
It seems on one hand you want to address philosophical problems so you can dismiss them, on the other hand you want to refuse you are actually stepping into philosophical territoriality to do this. You don't even seem to want to knowledge that you are discussing epistmology and the nature of truth.
>>731333
How so?
>>731325
Mah nigga. faggots who think philosophy and science are mutually exclusive are retards. They complement and enrich each other. The truly wise man let.everything teach him. He knows reality and thus, knowledge, is in everything by virtue of its existence
This is why history and philosophy go so well together, philosophy describes the principle, history tells us how the product turned out and continues to turn out
>>731341
What I got from that poster is, that he's a cuckold and basically what he wants you, I and every one else to do is ascribe to a logical-positivst outlook where whether other philosophical positions are useful for "progress" (in terms of science, medicine, technology) rather than engage in pointless jargon philosophy usually entails dealing with.
Basically, philosophy finished its job once it conceived the scientific method and has fallen off relevance, so there's no reason to pursue it any further.
>>731360
Tips fucking fedora. Just because the qualitative dimension triggers tour autistic sensibilities doesn't mean there's no value in it
>>731369
I would turn him away too, but after post-structuralism became I thing I think any decent human being would place their eggs on another basket and abandon that sinking faggot ship we call post-modernism desuuu.
>>731382
The traditionalist school owns bones and has done more for me in my life, actual tangible improvements in demeanor and creativity and shit, than science has ever done
>>731388
I feel the same way, I'm actually STEM but nothing is more satisfying to me than philosophy (and dealing with thermal machines and thermoelectricity but that's another topic), but the way I see it post-modernism has fucked philosophy's shit up so I'd rather stay a dilettente engaging in century old philosophers than try to keep up with modern philosophy
>>731341
Im questioning the necessity itself. By this I ask what can this epistemological reasoning do to aid the process of gathering knowledge in a scientific environment? And on what basis are they claiming they got a better grasp of what truth and validity is all about? Do we really need this sort of philosophical foundatiom to justify a method that is human? Isn't it all just depending of our language and context? Has there ever been a philosophical principle that's shed more light into a problem than empirical data? How can you say you can base your views on these principles when there is no consensus on which principles to follow? What knowledge can we actually get of our own reasoning that modern science hasn't modelled yet? Isn't our own reasoning based on ideas and concepts molded by human interaction which is in essence empirical? Considering again that science work far better than any other method, should we really be that arrogant as to say that because our basis of knowledge and truth has contradicting viewpoints about science, the method itself is to blame instead of the supposed basis?
>>731425
yes
>>731425
Science is really fucking useless aside from making predictions. Science can't even prove there's a monitor infront of me right now, or that I'm even a person. Science is, in every sense of the word, useless.
>>731400
Post structuralism is honestly not that bad and much of it is a reformulation of very old concepts but yeah I ain't dying on no hill for it and I don't begrudge you for not wanting to either
>>731480
That monitor only exists because people put together various scientific discoveries over time.
>>731485
Way to entirely miss his point, friendo.
>>731480
How can philosophy show then, that you are not that? Or well, what would the optimal startegy to deal with this issue? If there is none then it really isn't about science but about what questions xan we humanly answer. Another example is le matrix.
>>731488
>science is in every sense of the word useless
>as an example I will use something that only exists as a result of science
Yes, I did miss his point.
>>731499
Metaphysics, you dumbass.
>>731511
Okey, give me the metaphysical resolution to the problem.
>>731510
lol you don't even know what he's saying dude, stop embarrassing yourself
>>731510
I disagree with him that science is useless, but his point was "science can't even prove that the computer in front of me is even there."
He's not saying "science didn't come up with this computer monitor," he's saying "scientific methodology is so limited in its ability to describe reality that it can even provide an answer as to whether something as mundane as a computer screen even exists."
Sheesh.
>>731513
Platonic forms.
>>731532
That is one resolution, tell me why it is better than just stating that question doesn't make sense because existence is ill-defined. What gives one argument weight over other?
>>731521
>He's not saying "science didn't come up with this computer monitor,"
I'm aware. I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is to say that science has no use while in the process of using a computer monitor, both as an example of a thing that exists and in the process of actually sending the argument over the Internet (which is itself only possible because of an understanding of electricity, magnetism, wave proportion etc. If we are Not Really sure any of that exists for some reason we trust it to carry our shitpost. )
>>731539
For starters, it's an argument.
What can science do for me in this case? nothing, because all science is good for is for wiping my ass with it.
>>731541
>both as an example of a thing that exists and in the process of actually sending the argument over the Internet (which is itself only possible because of an understanding of electricity, magnetism, wave proportion etc. If we are Not Really sure any of that exists for some reason we trust it to carry our shitpost.
And you posit that this statement is science in itself? can you even define science, you quadra-fedora?
>>731425
>Considering again that science work far better than any other method
At a very, very specific thing dummy.
>Do we really need this sort of philosophical foundatiom to justify a method that is human
I don't know man, you seem to like emperisism. How many times do I need to remind you that empiricism is a product of other epistemology.
>what can this epistemological reasoning do to aid the process of gathering knowledge
Do you seriously not grasp how choosing between perspective, Kantian thing-it-self, and Platoism has profound effects on EVERYTHING. If you we go with perspectivism than whatever you discover has to be understood as being relative to perspective, there is no absolute truth only observation. If you go with Kant than whatever you discover is just an attempt to get closer and closer to the absolute truth but never approach it. If you go with Plato whatever you discover is a reflection of some greater absolute truth.
Just to give you an a scientific theory of everything can only exist within a Platonic world view. The other views will tell you are wasting your time on nonsense.
Not only are these ideas used in science but they are essential to the very nature of asking what the hell scientific advancement even looks like.
>>731549
We can test it, if you'd like. The treatment group is allowed to test things, make predictions and so on, the control group sits around and talks about meditation and Forms. We'll see which group comes up with monitors.
>>731545
But if it just stays as an argument, then how could it possibly be relevant for solving the problem. Instead of saying a whole other phenomenological world exists couldn't we blame it to our language that we found empirically that it is not suited to describe the world? Obviously science cannot help you, but you are not actually solving anything with just a valid argument.
It is the same with aristotelean logic, it doesn't actually gathers more truth.
>>731587
>can't prove
Absolute certainty is a complete red-herring. The sooner you abandon it the clearer your thinking is going to be.
>>731565
tips fedora lmao. and you STILL don't get what he's trying to say
>>731561
>At a very, very specific thing dummy
I argue that specific thing is the only worthwhile thing.
>empiricism is a product of other epistemology
Maybe I should distinct the scientific method from empiricism. The scientific method works really well without philosophical inquiry. It's not like because of Popper we suddenly could do more science.
Also you are giving to much validation to arguments about principles in reasoning and metaphysics but your own principles are not absolute and has are always changing. If you literally are giving me to choose between two viewpoints, what can I do to systematically choose that argument?
>>731591
Doesn't change the fact that you've admitted science can't do fuck-all for me.
>>731587
My point was that neither can metaphysics give a clear resolution. I also never claimed science was all knowing you fucktard.
>>731594
Nothing can do anything for you once you hit the problem of solipsism.
>>731594
You're right, it can't. So for the good of everyone, step away from the computer and shitpost only with the power of your mind.
>>731598
>implying my original point was that science couldn't prove there's a monitor infront of me.
you're just mad your failed system got pointed out for the sham it is lmao
>>731614
You showed me :^)
>>731621
Nope, my original point was agreed to fully with the consent of those fedora posters above; science can do fuck-all.
It's not dead, it's just useless, more than ever. Now excuse me, I gotta go wipe my ass.
>>731625
>stir me into being a solipsist
Everyone with two brain cells to rub together recognizes that the problem of solipsism is unsolvable, even in principle. That doesn't require you to SUBSCRIBE to it, cretin.
>other systems that can and DO
Other systems may provide bald assertions, but that isn't proof in any sense.
>>730810
>the goal of science is to describe the universe, not understand it
>we try to make it as accurate as possible so the model matches the actual mechanics of the universe
>this is totally not an attempt at understanding it
>understanding it leads to people saying random silly stuff
>despite that silly stuff not be necessary to the idea of understanding the universe
How the fuck do people take you seriously?
>>731639
I'm not a solipsist. Not sure why'd you think I am one.
>>731645
Science can't tell us what matter really is you cretin
Nigga you really think telling me water is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom suffices for telling me what water IS?
>>731645
>this is totally not an attempt at understanding it
Not directly, no. It is understanding by proxy, on after predictions have been confirmed. If all you try to do is describe and understand, you can do all sorts of things like getting into astrology. You "understand" how the universe with astrology, in that you have an explanation for how it works, but it should be thrown out because the predictions generated are rarely accurate. Jumping to trying to understand the universe is putting the cart before the horse.
Is the modern hostility to metaphysics an apt comparison to Creationists' hostility to evolution?
>>731593
>I argue that specific thing is the only worthwhile thing
So you want to study something and not interpret it? Or not decide what the use for that. Any sort of theory about how everything fits together or what we should with the knowledge requires stepping outside the realms of science and into something like metaphysics, ethics, or some form of philosophy. Philosophy of science exists for a reason.
>If you literally are giving me to choose between two viewpoints, what can I do to systematically choose that argument?
There are a great many ideas about why one view point is better than another. I won't go into it all of them but let's say that if you go into something with viewpoint a)you will get different results than b). I am not proposing one epistemology over another, except with a rejection of the idea that only emperical things are worth looking at. My position is that the world isn't that microscopic.
I think this is about the 4th time I've said this and you haven't addressed it. The statement "empiricism is the only way to get knowledge" is not empirically verifiable, nor can empiricism exist without other forms of epistomology. So the statement is a direct a contradiction.
>>731660
But if you subscribe to the view that reality is just composed of fundamental facts particles then it is sufficient to tell you that.
>>731639
>recognizes that the problem of solipsism is unsolvable
you cant be serious, solipsism makes a LOT of assumptions in the first place
>>731697
Uh, no, because those particles still add up to qualia, which chemical formulas can never express. If we were hovering in a void and reality was just formulas flitting by, maybe
>>731690
And I say that contradiction is bypassed considering how much better science works when dealing with many questions about reality. So if you are basing that I should choose my viewpoints on ideas that show better constistency with things that I already know then it's pretty easy to take the empirical path. It may not be the only one but it is undeniably much more suited for dealing with a broad set of questions.
>>731711
What qualia? Something we humans defined? Obviously that goes beyond the philosophical basis for chemistry and particle physics. You seem to not get fundamentaly how scientists treat fundamental particles.
What the hell is metaphysics anyway? The impression I get from an outside perspective is wild speculation on the nature of reality.
>>730850
You think I'm trying hard and making serious arguments. I see the separation between the God hypothesis and metaphysics. Sadly, I've seen no reason to accommodate either into my philosophical framework. At best, that's a failure on your lot's part.
>>729846
It'll end when unculturered scientists learn to stfu.
>>731020
I really just wanted to draw you out on some silly claims since I'm very cynical, but that's actually beautiful said nigga, even thouhh I don't agree with most of it. Brava Nolan.
>>732271
It's about valid reasoning and giving solid arguments, so at aome point it will become speculation.
let's recall that in physics, in any field called a science, you have
-first step is inductive; with what you see, you fix a system, then you discriminate between systems which behave like your system, and systems which do not behave like you system [the definition of a system is bogus of course, since the system is literally putting, at least, spatial and temporal boundaries to get an ''event'' (people love to take seriously space and time, they cannot think outside space and time)+ giving this event other qualities that it is supposed to bear]
induction serves, at the very least, to tie things/events/phenomena together through the concept of identity (or its opposite, of difference). instead of induction here, you can talk about abstractions, but they are the same things : to group things together and/or to differentiate between things.
-you continue your induction/abstraction (and frankly, you cannot even anything else in your life; it is too difficult to stop having faith in your inductions), in saying that, since two systems behave the same so far, they must have a few qualities which are the same
-then you apply deductive reasoning borrowed from math/logic: you quantify your qualities above and get new formulas from deductive rules (deductive rules are got by induction/abstraction just as above, why do you have faith in the modus ponens ? because you want to which leads you to see the world through logical causation. Rationalists like Quine who think of themselves as empiricists say that we are wired to see the world through classical logic (kant says that we are wired to see the world through space and time...)
-then you go back to induction in telling the experimental physicist (a complete stranger) to check statistically your deductive predictions
-then you get the result and you ask people what degree of statistical significance they like ? (the famous p-value or the n-sigma (n is number like 3 or 5 today))
>>732898
if the null hypothesis is rejected (p-value of 0.05 or any other socially accepted level to reject officially the null hypothesis) then your predictions are officially accepted (by whom ? nobody really knows)
and then you can claim that your deductive formulas ''describe the world'' (if you are a good rationalist-realist).
the underlying fantasy under this endeavour is ''motion brings knowledge''. the error is to think that ''immobility does not bring knowledge, or at least less knowledge than the study of motion''. but of course, this falls outside of physics like the rationalists have been perpetually painfully doing.
When you try not to move, physically and mentally, things happen too, and they yield certainty, contrary to studies through induction.
>>732898
>-then you apply deductive reasoning borrowed from math/logic: you quantify your qualities above and get new formulas from deductive rules (deductive rules are got by induction/abstraction just as above, why do you have faith in the modus ponens ? because you want to which leads you to see the world through logical causation. Rationalists like Quine who think of themselves as empiricists say that we are wired to see the world through classical logic (kant says that we are wired to see the world through space and time...)
>kant was a rationalist
the dumbest shit
>>732271
The study and investigation of reality's first principles
>>733280
>The presupposition and baseless claims of reality's first principles
ftfy
>>733285
Not if you're not an autist
>>733295
That all you got, magic man?
>>733300
>reality has a source
>let's see if we can understand something of it based on what this reality is and isnt
PROOF EVIDENCE PROOF EVIDENCE PROOF EVIDENCE PROOF EVIDENCE PROOF EVIDENCE PROOF EVIDENCE??????????
>>733314
>reality has a source
Do you have anything other than a baseless claim or a presupposition, magic man?
>>733333
Wasted quints
>>733336
Mad magic man mirin my quints of truth.
this is something i'm wondering
let's say that the entropic principle is responsible for the structure of the universe
but the entropic principle was arrived at as a conclusion from observing the universe, that is, it is not one fundamental written formula by which the universe was created but we see the universe operating in it and thus we made a conclusion from it, how come people STILL make assertions of a metaphysical source?
or let me put it this way
metaphysical speculation for the origin of the universe -> religion
physical conclusion for the behavior of the universe -> science
>>733344
>le objective labcoat man here to set the record straight and dispel the fog of delusion
>>733356
Objective labcoat men give you the computer you designate for shitposting. You can come back once metaphysics amounts to anything, even if that anything is being valid and sound, let's not kid ourselves about any actual achievements.
>>733374
>Objective labcoat men give you the computer you designate for shitposting
Fucking materialists, it's like the only "good" they think exists is just mindlessly consuming shit.
Come join the rest of us when you've left the cave, kiddo.
>>733374
>if it doesn't result in technological progress it's wrong/useless
Do you have empirical evidence to back up this claim? Thanks m8
>>733428
No, your contention is that science is superior to metaphysics/philosophy because it gave me this monitor, which shows you don't even know what their respective goals are, not to mention you don't even know what the fuck you're actually trying to say.
No, dude, you don't got a free pass because it's 2016 and your hipster buddies would look at you funny if you told them you meditated, you have to empirically prove empiricism is superior to everything else. But wait, you can't. Fuck your axioms nigga
>>733442
I don't claim superiority, I laugh at attempts to denigrate science. If you don't like it, fuck off back to the woods and write your metaphysical garbage with shit on a rock.
>>733447
lol read a book you mong
>>733447
No one's "denigrating science," turbonerd. If anything YOU'RE the one denigrating something by claiming that "metaphysics has no value, hurrrr".
>>733451
I'm already reading some. Are you going to recommend anything?
>>733467
I wrote a post itt about how you can structure your life around a metaphysical understanding of reality that has, in NY experience, helped a billion times more than dude don't be sad like you're serotonin is out of whack of something take these pills lmao
>>733467
The Buddha intuited the deep principles of reality sitting under a tree, claims about the nature of the elf and its relationship with everything else that """"philosophers"""" of mind are just now confirming. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about
>>733480
>the nature of the elf
Even though I have pointy ears, can one *truly* claim that one is an Elf?
>>729955
Hello plebbit!
>>733472
You can structure your life around anything. And no, having goals in life or views on it doesn't require any metaphysics whatsoever.
>you're serotonin is out of whack of something take these pills lmao
This is perfectly in line with "you m-m-materialists think we're just molecules randomly bumping into each other, materialism=nihilism"
It's completely asinine and ignores the fact that despite the factual physical underpinnings of our existence, we don't think of our existence only in terms of the smallest conceivable scales.
>>733480
Which principles are those? About the only things any of the buddhist contemplatives found out is that consciousness is an illusion. They didn't pull it out of their ass, they figured it out through meditation. And there's nothing metaphysical to it.
And even if I granted you that they did pull it out of their ass, that leaves the millions of contemplatives in human history who were provably wrong about their babble, which would leave this as nothing more than a lucky guess. Claims aren't true just because they're made, they have to be verified.
>>733721
>Claims aren't true just because they're made, they have to be verified.
can you verify this claim?
>>733735
Are you seriously disputing this?
Sure.
>fedora-memer makes claims about classical elements
>we investigate and find that there's no such thing as four elements that make up all matter
>whoops, looks like simply making the claim didn't make it true
If you're going to pull out absolute certainty, you can go back to grade school. Absolute certainty is completely irrelevant to human endeavours.
>>733778
>he thinks the element of fire literally means just fire
This is why people think positivists are autists. You just can't wrap your head around anything
>metaphysics
when will this shit meme die
>>733783
>he thinks there are four arbitrary states of being
Your point is still wrong despite reinterpretation of the elements the Greeks talked about. We're literally talking about "rock goes towards Earth, and fire tries to escape it" level of thinking.
>>733846
lol
fire = flux
earth = permanent
jesus, you are such a fucking autist just die
metaphysics won't prove god real
>>733921
Again, I just told you your reinterpretation is wrong. Do you have anything other than these autismal objections that don't address the point?
>>733958
We are addressing the point dipshit and the point is you have no fucking clue what elements is supposed to refer to.
Earth = ground. The clay of reality
Water = life. Action, emotion, movement
Air = the abiding medium, space
Fire = the spark. Spirit
Not that fucking hard you utter sperg
>>734059
>We are addressing the point dipshit and the point is you have no fucking clue what elements is supposed to refer to.
No, actually, I have a pretty good clue. Given that I specifically referred to Greeks and classical elements, I'm clearly not talking about your nth redefinition of elements.
And no, the point is that simply making claims doesn't make them true. The elements thing was an illustration of it.
Now are you too dense to figure these two things out?
>>734104
>your interpretations are wrong because they negate my argument
Please.
>>734059
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element
Here, scroll down to Greek if you're too confused, spinmeister extraordinaire.
>>734124
The first sentence literally says they're analogous to the four phases of matter you utter doof
>>734109
Purposefully misinterpreting what someone says and changing definitions of what even you are talking about can hardly be called a negation.
>>734135
>you didn't agree with him so you're wrong
Just stop
Primitive ancient metaphysics is dead. Complicated modern metaphysics is alive as alive it can be. It is shame that everyone who interest in this follow outdated religious concepts or even shit like classic elements instead of doing research into serious philosophical works.
>>734134
It literally says they're similar. And the assertion that these things are all that make up existence is still wrong. See: black holes, dark matter, quantum field theory.
You're incapable of even the most basic form of honest and rational discourse. Bye.
>>734152
>the universe doesn't have solids, liquids and gas
lmao
>>734152
Yeah. Similar. You can refer to the same broad concepts with different terminology. Fuckin shocking I know.
Also,
>honest, rational discourse
Kek, coming from the guy who literally thinks grown ass men thought the entire universe was made of fire, dirt, water, and a little air because they didn't have the luxury of it being the year 2016. See ya brah
>>734179
Heraclitus made a bunch of philosophical assertions which modern science is barely starting to prove right
>luxury of being the year 2016
>literally "omg guize, they didnt have telescopes and shit they couldn't know nothing!"
what is ad-hominem?
have fun with your autism, cuck.
>>734191
What are you blithering about I'm on your side dumbass
>>734200
you're right, i didn't bother to check who you were quoting, thought you were accusing the greeks of literally believing we were made of firestuffs.
>>734201
Nope, that's the other guy. Well met though mah nigga
/his/ on a nutshell :
>"hey guys what do you think of alchemy"
>"are you fucking retarded?"
>FEDORA MUH SCIENCE READ A BOOK *TIPS* HURR SCIENCE ONLY EXPLAINS MODELS NOT REALITY DURR PLEB
Shittiest board since /mlp/ to be honest lads, maybe this board may have functioned before theism and edgy contrarianism became a meme for autistic manchildren.
>>734289
Humanities was a mistake.
>>734289
That's cool Timmy
>>734289
what needed to happen was /phi/
I don't want to share a boar with autismos who wank off to vikings and debate whether genetics determined successful nations or not; literally making place for pol 2.0 there
>>731532
>Platonic forms.
they're a lie
>>731480
Lol classic humanities drivel
>>730046
Why is everyone who says this a dickhead?
>>734554
Classic STEMfaggotry
