Is There a Cure for Metaphysical Dogma?

[Nous]

My impression is that most philosophically conversant adults hold some belief that a thesis of metaphysics states a truth about the nature of reality. If you do not hold any such belief, you are welcomed to declare your metaphysical neutrality.

Further, my impression is that it isn't uncommon people to hold their metaphysical beliefs tenaciously, even when presented evidence contrary to the thesis, or on the basis of clearly invalid reasoning. In other words, the belief takes on the characteristics of a dogma, in which there is an intellectual or emotional allegiance to it, possibly motivated by identification with a group.

Definition of DOGMA

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet

b : a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma

c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds​

Indeed, any sort of overt affirmation of a single metaphysical thesis might be considered suspect, given that metaphysical theses are not scientifically tested or shown to be true to the exclusion of all others. Some metaphysical theses or certain tenets of some theses might be (and seemingly have been) empirically ruled out. But that doesn't leave us with which, if any, thesis is true.

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?

 

[Sunstone]

Metaphysical speculations are generally distasteful to me.

 

[crowfeather]

The intellect distrusts to the point of ridicule, anything it is incapable of understanding.
And it is comprehensively incapable of grasping Truth.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

My impression is that most philosophically conversant adults hold some belief that a thesis of metaphysics states a truth about the nature of reality. If you do not hold any such belief, you are welcomed to declare your metaphysical neutrality.

Further, my impression is that it isn't uncommon people to hold their metaphysical beliefs tenaciously, even when presented evidence contrary to the thesis, or on the basis of clearly invalid reasoning. In other words, the belief takes on the characteristics of a dogma, in which there is an intellectual or emotional allegiance to it, possibly motivated by identification with a group.

Definition of DOGMA

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet

b : a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma

c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds​

Indeed, any sort of overt affirmation of a single metaphysical thesis might be considered suspect, given that metaphysical theses are not scientifically tested or shown to be true to the exclusion of all others. Some metaphysical theses or certain tenets of some theses might be (and seemingly have been) empirically ruled out. But that doesn't leave us with which, if any, thesis is true.

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?

No, I don't subscribe to any form of dogma, although I did in the past. It is quite possible that the tendency to "tenaciously" hold on to metaphysical dogmatic beliefs may be a result of evolution. Perhaps the firm belief in an invisible anthropomorphic father figure in the sky somehow increased survival and reproduction in the early portions of the Agricultural era.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

I find that any metaphysical thesis is tenuous at best. Philosophically I am a Socratic skeptic.

I find the Philosophy of Metaphysical Naturalism the easiest to believe and defend, because of its consistent predictive knowledge concerning the nature of our physical existence, but even that is subject to revision and does not represent 'truth' from any definitive perspective.

Beyond the physical nature of our existence I find all 'metaphysical thesis' very very tenuous to claim anything close to the standard of a claim of truth from the fallible human perspective. More on this after some thought.

 

[LukeS]

I believe I exist and an in a world. That.s is pretty plain, and that language makes sense too. Those beliefs are at the more certain end of the spectrum.

 

[Nous]

No, I don't subscribe to any form of dogma, although I did in the past. It is quite possible that the tendency to "tenaciously" hold on to metaphysical dogmatic beliefs may be a result of evolution. Perhaps the firm belief in an invisible anthropomorphic father figure in the sky somehow increased survival and reproduction in the early portions of the Agricultural era.

Among those metaphysical theses most tenaciously held are ones that have nothing to do with "an invisible anthropomorphic father figure in the sky".

 

[Nous]

I find that any metaphysical thesis is tenuous at best. Philosophically I am a Socratic skeptic.

I find the Philosophy of Metaphysical Naturalism the easiest to believe and defend, because of its consistent predictive knowledge concerning the nature of our physical existence, but even that is subject to revision and does not represent 'truth' from any definitive perspective.

Beyond the physical nature of our existence I find all 'metaphysical thesis' very very tenuous to claim anything close to the standard of a claim of truth from the fallible human perspective. More on this after some thought.

Define what you mean by "physical".

Are not these ideas about "physical" or "our physical existence" just a tenent of a metaphysical thesis? "Physical" is not an adjective that any scientific discipline defines or tests.

 

[Nous]

I believe I exist and an in a world. That.s is pretty plain, and that language makes sense too. Those beliefs are at the more certain end of the spectrum.

Yes, the propositions "I exist" and "I am in a world" can comfortably fit in a number of metaphysical theses.

 

[Koldo]

My impression is that most philosophically conversant adults hold some belief that a thesis of metaphysics states a truth about the nature of reality. If you do not hold any such belief, you are welcomed to declare your metaphysical neutrality.

Further, my impression is that it isn't uncommon people to hold their metaphysical beliefs tenaciously, even when presented evidence contrary to the thesis, or on the basis of clearly invalid reasoning. In other words, the belief takes on the characteristics of a dogma, in which there is an intellectual or emotional allegiance to it, possibly motivated by identification with a group.

Definition of DOGMA

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet

b : a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma

c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds​

Indeed, any sort of overt affirmation of a single metaphysical thesis might be considered suspect, given that metaphysical theses are not scientifically tested or shown to be true to the exclusion of all others. Some metaphysical theses or certain tenets of some theses might be (and seemingly have been) empirically ruled out. But that doesn't leave us with which, if any, thesis is true.

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?

Why must we rule out all possible thesis to hold one as true ?
I don't see why one ought to rule out all other possibilities to be christians, for example. If an individual finds a given religion compelling, wouldn't that suffice ? Please do elaborate on this point.

 

[Nous]

Why must we rule out all possible thesis to hold one as true ?

Did I say or imply that?

 

[Koldo]

Did I say or imply that?

That's what I understood by "Some metaphysical theses or certain tenets of some theses might be (and seemingly have been) empirically ruled out. But that doesn't leave us with which, if any, thesis is true.". If that's not what you meant, please do clarify.

 

[Nous]

That's what I understood by "Some metaphysical theses or certain tenets of some theses might be (and seemingly have been) empirically ruled out. But that doesn't leave us with which, if any, thesis is true.". If that's not what you meant, please do clarify.

What I meant by that is simply that ruling out a thesis does not tell us which (if any) thesis is true.

 

[shunyadragon]

Define what you mean by "physical".

Why the problem? Physical - The tangible natural world.

Are not these ideas about "physical" or "our physical existence" just a tenant of a metaphysical thesis?

The metaphysical thesis of Methodological Naturalism excludes all other thesis concerning the supernatural causes and effects beyond the tangible physical.

"Physical" is not an adjective that any scientific discipline defines or tests.

It definitely is an adjective that ALL scientific disciplines defines the tangible physical natural world as what is testable and falsifiable in Methodological Naturalism. The physical sciences are the foundation sciences of Physics, Geology. Chemistry and Astronomy.

From: Methodological Naturalism
"Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue."

 

[Nous]

Why the problem? Physical - The tangible natural world.

"No one has ever seen or touched energy." Davies and Gribbin, The Matter Myth. (That might not be an exact quote; I don't have the book with me.) As they explain, energy is a quantity, introduced in the 19th century to simplify the equations of mechanics and thermodynamics.

It definitely is an adjective that ALL scientific disciplines defines the tangible physical natural world

No, you won't find the adjective "physical" defined in any science textbook.

 

[shunyadragon]

"No one has ever seen or touched energy." Davies and Gribbin, The Matter Myth. (That might not be an exact quote; I don't have the book with me.) As they explain, energy is a quantity, introduced in the 19th century to simplify the equations of mechanics and thermodynamics.

Your bias agenda sound bite quote is selective and does not reflect the complete view of Paul Davies and John Gribbon. Read the whole book.

From: The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality: Paul Davies, John Gribbin: 9780743290913: Amazon.com: Books
In this sweeping survey, acclaimed science writers Paul Davies and John Gribbin provide a complete overview of advances in the study of physics that have revolutionized modern science. From the weird world of quarks and the theory of relativity to the latest ideas about the birth of the cosmos, the authors find evidence for a massive paradigm shift. Developments in the studies of black holes, cosmic strings, solitons, and chaos theory challenge commonsense concepts of space, time, and matter, and demand a radically altered and more fully unified view of the universe.

Energy can tangibly measured and quantified, and demonstrated as equivalent to matter in E=mc2.

No, you won't find the adjective "physical" defined in any science textbook.

Already gave references that define it. Example: Physics is specifically defined as a physical science dealing intimately with the physical properties of energy and matter. Where do you think the word physics comes from?

 

[Nous]

Your bias agenda sound bite quote is selective and does not reflect the complete view of Paul Davies and John Gribbon. Read the whole book.

From: The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality: Paul Davies, John Gribbin: 9780743290913: Amazon.com: Books
In this sweeping survey, acclaimed science writers Paul Davies and John Gribbin provide a complete overview of advances in the study of physics that have revolutionized modern science. From the weird world of quarks and the theory of relativity to the latest ideas about the birth of the cosmos, the authors find evidence for a massive paradigm shift. Developments in the studies of black holes, cosmic strings, solitons, and chaos theory challenge commonsense concepts of space, time, and matter, and demand a radically altered and more fully unified view of the universe.

Page 20:

“The concept of energy, for example, is a familiar one today, yet it was originally introduced as a purely theoretical quantity to simplify the physicists' description of mechanical and thermodynamic processes. We cannot see or touch energy . . .”

The Matter Myth

the definition of tangible:

adjective

1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.​

Energy can tangibly measured and quantified,

What does "tangibly measured" mean?

I certainly didn't say or imply that energy cannot be measured (i.e., calculated) or quantified. Just the contrary, energy is a quantity.

Energy is not tangible. No one has ever seen or touched energy.

and demonstrated as equivalent to matter in E=mc2.

False. Energy is not equivalent to matter. Energy is a conserved quantity. Matter is not a conserved quantity. The "m" in Einstein's equation does not stand for "matter".

You should try to educate yourself in physics.

Already gave references that define it.

Everyone can read what you;ve written; it doesn't do any good to declare falsehoods about it. Again, you won't find the adjective "physical" defined in any science textbook. It isn't an adjective that any science depends upon or traffics in.

By the way, what did you claim is "testable" about "physical"? Link to those tests.

 

[shunyadragon]

By the way, what did you claim is "testable" about "physical"? Link to those tests.

The entire history of physics demonstrates that the physical is testable in the form of energy and matter. Your canards, obfuscations, red herrings and selective citations out of context based on a religious agenda do not represent anything close to science.

 

[Koldo]

What I meant by that is simply that ruling out a thesis does not tell us which (if any) thesis is true.

Sure, but further elaborate on that. Why there must be a way to tell which one is true to hold one as true ?

 

[siti]

My impression is that most philosophically conversant adults hold some belief that a thesis of metaphysics states a truth about the nature of reality. If you do not hold any such belief, you are welcomed to declare your metaphysical neutrality.

I suppose it might be true that most of us "subscribe" to one thesis of metaphysics or another. I consciously try not to do so - certainly not to the point of dogmatism.

I am very well aware that my own naturalistic "panexperiential physical process" view of reality is definitely in the category of speculative metaphysics even though I try to underpin it with my best attempts to understand current scientific "revelation". 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. So I am no more 'neutral' in metaphysics than I am at a soccer game - but I will continue to cheer for 'my team' even though I know 'we' will probably not win every game - and ultimately, even the longest running 'winning streaks' must come to an end eventually.

I don't think naturalism or even physicalism has reached that point yet - they still have much more to reveal and remain (for me at least) worth following at least for the rest of the current 'season'. In any case, its far too early to predict which potential successor will finally usurp the metaphysical crown. Idealism and dualism (for example) have both shot their bolts long ago, but materialism trumped them both for the best part of 300 years. They may be making a late rally (with 'mathematical universes' etc.) in the final quarter of the current scientific paradigm, but I doubt it will be enough to overcome the challenge of a genuinely mature and more organic and circumspect naturalistic (and probably bipolar) process metaphysics - which I'm not sure has really emerged yet - at least not at a level that "most philosophically conversant adults" would be acutely aware of - probably along the lines of Bergson, Whitehead and Hartshorne but without (what I perceive to be) their regressions to idealism at the ultimate levels - but who knows. Not me that's for sure.

What I am sure of - and this might be the sense in which you meant "neutrality" - is that no metaphysical thesis will ever state the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about reality. And yet at the same time most (if not all) of them make (at least some) true statements about something or other that can be said about reality. And that is where the danger of dogmatism arises - in our propensity for taking what can truthfully be said about reality to be the truth about reality. The search for the truth about the nature of reality will always be asymptotic. But that's not to say we can't back the thesis we imagine will get us closest.