Is There a Cure for Metaphysical Dogma?

[shunyadragon]

Thank you for repeating what I already said. It's precisely how we know that the scientific method cannot reveal which, if any, metaphysical thesis is true.

Metaphysical theses of worlds beyond our physical existence are not things that exist in terms of our scientific methods.

 

[shunyadragon]

But you can't define any of those ideas, can you?

Yes science can as long as relates to physical existence where objective evidence verifies the physical

On "another thread," you failed to account for nonlocality as an effect of "matter/energy"? Correct?

No.

So you still can't articulate any argument for any of your airy-fairy ideas of "physicalism" or "naturalism"?

The Physical nature of our existence, and what is described as naturalism is well defined by science, despite your obfuscations, red herrings, selective reference out of context to justify your religious agenda.

 

[Willamena]

So, do you “have” a metaphysical thesis, one that you assert to be true? If so, on what grounds have you concluded its truth? Is this thesis falsifiable? If so, what fact or evidence would falsify it?

If someone is aware of a fact or evidence that falsifies what they believe about reality, then they don't actually believe what they believe or reality isn't reality. Or falsification isn't falsification. The question is absurd.

 

[shunyadragon]

If someone is aware of a fact or evidence that falsifies what they believe about reality, then they don't actually believe what they believe or reality isn't reality. Or falsification isn't falsification. The question is absurd.

Needs more clarification as to whether falsification applies to any other worlds other than the world of our physical existence.

 

[Willamena]

Needs more clarification as to whether falsification applies to any other worlds other than the world of our physical existence.

How can you know if it does? To speculate beyond reason is ... beyond reason.

 

[shunyadragon]

How can you know if it does? To speculate beyond reason is ... beyond reason.

To speculate on the limits of Methodological Naturalism is an interesting foggy assertion. Needs further explanation.

 

[siti]

But you can't define any of those ideas, can you?

On "another thread," you failed to account for nonlocality as an effect of "matter/energy"? Correct?

So you still can't articulate any argument for any of your airy-fairy ideas of "physicalism" or "naturalism"?

OK - its a definitions debate (again) then - here goes with my definitions:

"Naturalism" is the idea that everything is explained by natural causes - there are no "spooky", "spiritual" or "supernatural" causes. Though there may still be apparently "spooky"...etc. effects that have no currently understood natural explanation, naturalism holds that scientific investigation is the most appropriate means by which a satisfactory explanation may be sought.

"Physicalism" is the idea that the real world consists of the physical world (i.e. matter/energy and their effects). Philosophers who subscribe to this idea mostly would say that the real world consists of both physical 'things' and everything (such as 'mental states' for example) that 'supervene' on (depend on or arise from) the physical.

As for my failing 'to account for non-locality as an effect of "matter/energy"' - what you refer to are experiments that have been done on 'non-locality' that arises from our current understanding of quantum mechanics. As I asked - and you failed to answer - in that thread, could you please give the data from an experiment that was not both initiated and performed with physical apparatus. You are correct that I am not able to account for it. But you are no better able to do so. You can argue that mathematics explains it - but how does mathematics 'cause' it? So you have an experiment that can only be done physically, in the physical world by physical experimenters using physical apparatus and it gives an odd result that does not correspond to our physical understanding of the world. Explain that - explain how the non-physical causes physical effects. If you can do that, then you can take the high ground in this debate. If you cannot, then there is nothing to choose between my 'naturalism' and your 'supernaturalism' - but guess which one has the best track record of explaining things in the real world?

Non-locality remains a mystery - but we will never observe it other than by physical means. So the question really is which do you prefer as an approach to investigating this mystery? A naturalistic approach based on physical science - or a supernatural, non-physical approach? Should we all join hands and attempt to contact the spirits of the photons? Or have a special prayer service to invoke them to reveal their secrets? Or should we just keep on thinking of more and more elegant ways to make the measurements so that we gradually get to understand the deeper mysteries of the natural world just as we have, over the last few hundred years, progressed from supernaturalism to naturalism in our understanding of cosmology, geology, chemistry, biology...etc. etc.

 

[Nous]

If you accept the scientific method as a proper method to rule out certain metaphysical theses, then you hold some metaphysical theses as true yourself.

Prove it.
Again, I don't know how to say it any more clearly: to use the scientific method to eliminate a metaphysical thesis or a tenet of a thesis does not reveal which, if any, metaphysical thesis is true.

 

[Nous]

Methodological Naturalism cannot rule out nor help rule out any metaphysical theses nor tenants of such theses beyond our physical existence.

I don't have a clue as to what any of that is supposed to mean. Cite the evidence to prove your claims.

 

[Nous]

Metaphysical theses of worlds beyond our physical existence are not things that exist in terms of our scientific methods.

Again, cite the evidence to prove your claims.

I bet you can't define the adjective "physical" in your sentence.

 

[Nous]

Yes science can as long as relates to physical existence where objective evidence verifies the physical

Prove it.

On "another thread," you failed to account for nonlocality as an effect of "matter/energy"? Correct?

No.

Prove it.

The Physical nature of our existence, and what is described as naturalism is well defined by science

Prove it. Don't forget to cite the evidence that proves your claims.

 

[Nous]

So, do you “have” a metaphysical thesis, one that you assert to be true? If so, on what grounds have you concluded its truth? Is this thesis falsifiable? If so, what fact or evidence would falsify it?

If someone is aware of a fact or evidence that falsifies what they believe about reality, then they don't actually believe what they believe or reality isn't reality.

You need to reread what I wrote. Perhaps you will need to look up what "falsifiable" means? When I asked if one's thesis is falsifiable, I was asking whether evidence can be gotten that could possibly prove it to be false. Or maybe the thesis is something vacuous, like a tautology that is true by definition.

The question is absurd.

The way that the scientific method is employed is by falsifying hypotheses.

 

[Nous]

OK - its a definitions debate (again) then - here goes with my definitions:

"Naturalism" is the idea that everything is explained by natural causes - there are no "spooky", "spiritual" or "supernatural" causes. Though there may still be apparently "spooky"...etc. effects that have no currently understood natural explanation, naturalism holds that scientific investigation is the most appropriate means by which a satisfactory explanation may be sought.

"Physicalism" is the idea that the real world consists of the physical world (i.e. matter/energy and their effects). Philosophers who subscribe to this idea mostly would say that the real world consists of both physical 'things' and everything (such as 'mental states' for example) that 'supervene' on (depend on or arise from) the physical.

As for my failing 'to account for non-locality as an effect of "matter/energy"' - what you refer to are experiments that have been done on 'non-locality' that arises from our current understanding of quantum mechanics. As I asked - and you failed to answer - in that thread, could you please give the data from an experiment that was not both initiated and performed with physical apparatus. You are correct that I am not able to account for it. But you are no better able to do so. You can argue that mathematics explains it - but how does mathematics 'cause' it? So you have an experiment that can only be done physically, in the physical world by physical experimenters using physical apparatus and it gives an odd result that does not correspond to our physical understanding of the world. Explain that - explain how the non-physical causes physical effects. If you can do that, then you can take the high ground in this debate. If you cannot, then there is nothing to choose between my 'naturalism' and your 'supernaturalism' - but guess which one has the best track record of explaining things in the real world?

Non-locality remains a mystery - but we will never observe it other than by physical means. So the question really is which do you prefer as an approach to investigating this mystery? A naturalistic approach based on physical science - or a supernatural, non-physical approach? Should we all join hands and attempt to contact the spirits of the photons? Or have a special prayer service to invoke them to reveal their secrets? Or should we just keep on thinking of more and more elegant ways to make the measurements so that we gradually get to understand the deeper mysteries of the natural world just as we have, over the last few hundred years, progressed from supernaturalism to naturalism in our understanding of cosmology, geology, chemistry, biology...etc. etc.

You said in your first post that you "staunchly defend" naturalism and physicalism. I don't know how one defends such metaphysical theses if one can't define those terms so that one can distinguish what is "natural" from what is not natural, and what is "physical" from what is not. I know that elsewhere you have defined the adjective "physical" as "matter/energy," which just means that nonlocal collapse of the wavefunction is not accounted for as a "physical" effect. I'm not sure whether you would include dark matter and/or dark energy, if such exist, as "matter/energy".

I suspect that, if you ever get around to doing something more than begging the question, you will have great difficulty deducing from the evidence obtained by the scientific method that either the thesis of "naturalism" or "physicalism" is true. As already noted several times on this thread, as early as in the OP, the scientific method simply can't be used to test hypotheses about "everything that exists".

 

[Koldo]

Prove it.
Again, I don't know how to say it any more clearly: to use the scientific method to eliminate a metaphysical thesis or a tenet of a thesis does not reveal which, if any, metaphysical thesis is true.

You can't use the scientific method to rule out metaphysical theses without holding certain metaphysical assumptions in the first place. That there is a world that can be observed and that the data you can gather from this world can be used to rule out some metaphysical theses is one of those assumptions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Prove it.


Prove it.

Prove it. Don't forget to cite the evidence that proves your claims.

Stone walling, hyperbole and ignorance based on a religious agenda, Science does not 'prove' anything. Science is based on consistent predictability through the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

You can't use the scientific method to rule out metaphysical theses without holding certain metaphysical assumptions in the first place. That there is a world that can be observed and that the data you can gather from this world can be used to rule out some metaphysical theses is one of those assumptions.

True

 

[siti]

You said in your first post that you "staunchly defend" naturalism and physicalism.

Actually I said - well - again let me quote in context:

In discussion I will staunchly defend 'naturalism', 'physicalism', and 'scientific realism' because, although I cannot dogmatically assert that any, or all, are actually correct - they have the best track records so far and they are the best hope (IMO) for casting further metaphysical light on the nature of reality.

I don't know how one defends such metaphysical theses if one can't define those terms so that one can distinguish what is "natural" from what is not natural, and what is "physical" from what is not.

OK - so help me out - you said earlier

How do you define and defend "physicalism"? What does one do with "spooky action at a distance"? I think that's supernatural.

So you define "supernatural" - that will help me either to see that everything is supernatural or at least that not all things are "natural".

I know that elsewhere you have defined the adjective "physical" as "matter/energy,"...

...and the effects of matter/energy - did you read my previous comment?

...which just means that nonlocal collapse of the wavefunction is not accounted for as a "physical" effect.

"Not accounted for as..." is not the same as saying "not a...". Non-locality might be outside the limits of relativity, but it does not necessarily mean it is a non-physical effect. In any case, we don't really know that there is a real "wavefunction" or a real "collapse" do we? There's nothing in Quantum Theory per se that demands it - only in one (preferred) interpretation in order to make QM accord with relativity so that classical 'particles' can be 'real'. The very experimental evidence that "proves" non-locality casts considerable doubt on the "truth" of that interpretation regardless of its astonishing success in making 'real-world' predictions on which a huge part of our modern world is based.

I'm not sure whether you would include dark matter and/or dark energy, if such exist, as "matter/energy".

What's this - a smokescreen? What does dark matter/dark energy have to do with the current discussion? And in any case, if they do turn out to be real, then yes I would classify them as physical - i.e. part of the real world of matter/energy and their effects.

I suspect that, if you ever get around to doing something more than begging the question, you will have great difficulty deducing from the evidence obtained by the scientific method that either the thesis of "naturalism" or "physicalism" is true. As already noted several times on this thread, as early as in the OP, the scientific method simply can't be used to test hypotheses about "everything that exists".

The scientific method "begs the question" by deliberately discounting supernatural causes - this is called "methodological naturalism" - if you are arguing about metaphysics that's a different thing - that is "ontological naturalism". A practicing scientist has to assume naturalism in her work but she doesn't have to believe it as a metaphysical thesis. The scientific method is not used to discount metaphysical theses since it deliberately avoids saying anything that does not correspond to a naturalistic worldview. But that is not the same as saying the naturalistic worldview is true. If you are (as you are) defending supernatural causation, then you have abandoned the scientific method. That's fine with me - science may not be the only way to arrive at "truth" - speculative metaphysics may be another appropriate way of approaching "truth" - but you can't have your cake and ha'penny - you can't say (as you did) that it's supernatural and then claim that its also science. And that is the problem I have with this comment that you made earlier - and that is admittedly believed by many really smart science people today...

But mainly I defend scientific realism because it implies mathematical realism

Scientific realism is not the same as the scientific method - scientific realism is also assumed methodologically in order to practice science - but that again is not the same as saying that it is true. Scientific realism being true (or untrue) has nothing to do with whether mathematical realism is true (or untrue). Physical things can be fundamentally real (i.e. importantly to the current discussion, have determined mathematical properties) without the mathematical properties themselves being fundamentally real (or even vice versa). Scientific realism is by definition naturalistic, mathematical realism is by definition supernaturalistic unless one says that the reality of the mathematical objects is established by the reality of the physical realities they describe.

 

[shunyadragon]

↑
But mainly I defend scientific realism because it implies mathematical realism.

There is no such thing in math as mathematical realism. This is an odd myth of your own creation.

Math is simply a tool box used and applied in science, in applied fields such as engineering, and the everyday world for utilitarian purposes.

It would help if you would come down to the reality of how math, academic reality and logic works in the real world and not self imposed agenda that has no relation to the real world.

I do not object to the believe in God, Creation and Revelation of many diverse fallible human views, but consistency and predictability are important criteria compatible with the evidence for any world view,

 

[Willamena]

You need to reread what I wrote. Perhaps you will need to look up what "falsifiable" means? When I asked if one's thesis is falsifiable, I was asking whether evidence can be gotten that could possibly prove it to be false.

Exactly. And how could that apply to any metaphysical thesis that is believed? To believe means to invest genuinely in its truth, so if one had on hand some evidence that indicated that it was false, one would doubt, at least, or at best disbelieve it; or, if one had evidence that the metaphysical picture that is reality was actually some other way than what they thought, their metaphysical picture would be rewrote to conform to the new evidence, or they would be brought face-to-face with the falsity of their belief.

You can't have it both ways.

Or maybe the thesis is something vacuous, like a tautology that is true by definition.

The way that the scientific method is employed is by falsifying hypotheses.

Definition does not a tautology make.

 

[Nous]

You can't use the scientific method to rule out metaphysical theses without holding certain metaphysical assumptions in the first place.

Prove it.