
Metaphysics Underwent Final Confirmation.
This is an example on how to destroy concepts, such as "agreeing with". Keep that up and you'll end with the english language in no time. It won't destroy the dictionary, mind you, just the ability of "everyone else" to have a clue of what you are saying.Kenny Login wrote:Thanks. I agree with everything that everyone says so there shouldn't be a problem ;-)
What, was it observed by the LHC or something?jamest wrote:MUFC!![]()
Metaphysics Underwent Final Confirmation.
But it is beginning to look like we have several Bolton supporters. Hey, even I will hop on that bandwagon!Luis Dias wrote:What, was it observed by the LHC or something?jamest wrote:MUFC!![]()
Metaphysics Underwent Final Confirmation.
The irony is that while we were being chastised for solipsism in the other old thread, here jamest and the navel crew show how solipsism is really like. It's when rebuttals are "confirmations", when internet discussions are "Final Confirmations", when people keep misreading, and disparaging continuous strawmans, when some poster agrees with A and ~A. One wonders in what "world" do these people "really" live on. I get the feeling we don't live in the same planet.
No, it would not, because "directly perceiving" (i.e., by "pure reason") is just what metaphysics purports to do, in its efforts at navel-gazing wibblery. I guess we shouldn't call it "navel gazing", but rather, "navel perceiving".Kenny Login wrote:Unless you consider that it's possible to directly perceive, unencumbered by any of these assumptions. Which might turn out to be a very interesting discussion.
A model is as conceived of as any other data - it's all part of the understanding process.Surendra Darathy wrote:Do you wish to assert that a "model" has a metaphysical aspect? I think this is where you wish to go.jamest wrote: Perhaps you lot should have a time-out and decide exactly where you all stand, right now. And when you decide, as one, let me know.
We cannot address an assertion. Only arguments. And you still haven't provided one. You just assert out of incredulity, or I would say, lack of imagination.jamest wrote: Myargument ASSERTION, of course, was that there has to be something upon which this data is grounded. And, to be honest, I have seen no serious attempt to address the reasons that I provided for that claim. This is unfortunate, given the fact that this issue is the crux of the whole debate.
But we are not even close to beginning to consider these things. The point is more that in order to go down this line of enquiry, you either wittingly or unwittingly invoke metaphysics. Call it what you will, but it's unavoidable. (I think this is similar to what jamest was talking about earlier, but I might be wrong.)Luis Dias wrote:It rather depends upon the definition of "objective" and "factual" vs "fictional". What is the difference between the last two, and what is your definition of the first?Kenny Login wrote:that there is necessarily a subjective/objective divide, that something fictional can't interact with something factual, and so on. Would you agree?
Yes, absolutely.Luis Dias wrote:What do you mean by "directly perceive"? You perceive and there are mechanisms to perceive even better. If anything, this shows that perception depends upon lots of other things than just opening your eyes.
Ah, it was meant as a joke (hence the use of the smiley face). I can assure you there was no subversive agenda to corrupt semantics.Luis Dias wrote:This is an example on how to destroy concepts, such as "agreeing with". Keep that up and you'll end with the english language in no time. It won't destroy the dictionary, mind you, just the ability of "everyone else" to have a clue of what you are saying.Kenny Login wrote:Thanks. I agree with everything that everyone says so there shouldn't be a problem ;-)
Your reading comprehension difficulties are now legendary, because you insist on your own idiosyncratic interpretations of everything you read. Hence, you fail to distinguish your opinion from careful analysis of what you have read, and insist on publishing your "view" of someone else's "stance". Let's take your stumblings one at at time:jamest wrote:A model is as conceived of as any other data - it's all part of the understanding process.
How I view your stance:
This is not anything I've said or implied. I do not refer to "mental constructs", which is your "view" of what constitutes empiricism. In other words, you project your wibble of "mental constructs" onto everything to be discussed. You're jumping the gun by projecting your metaphysical opinion onto everything you read. Just fucking read it, James. Here, try again:jamest wrote:'Empirical data' is to be viewed as our own mental constructs.
Stop with this canard, James. You are attacking your favorite strawman again, and my question to you about methodology does not permit you to skip over the precision of language required to express laboratory technique. What you mistakenly refer to as "ever changing" is the theoretical framework. Data are not unchanging representations because the objects of measurement exist in some unchanging metaphysical realm. Data are reproducible because of the requirement of giving precise descriptions of methodology for making the measurements. When new instrumentation is invented, the descriptions of methodology for using the instrumentation are updated so as to be appropriate for the new instrumentation. Laboratory equipment now includes the LHC, which is "something new" that we call an "innovation".jamest wrote:This is obvious really, given the oft erroneous and incomplete nature of that data, not to mention its ever-changing form.
And it is another canard for you, James, because "knowing" means something different in science than it does in metaphysics. Epistemology includes specifying the methodology for making a measurement. The "purpose" of making a measurement is to test a theoretical framework, not to "verify" it. Read about "ultraviolet catastrophe", James, and see if you are not completely incapable of describing the problems for classical electromagnetism posed by the problem of black body radiation viewed within the framework of classical electromagnetism. Then take note that classical electromagnetism is still perfectly adequate for designing the electric motors that help in starting automobile engines.jamest wrote:However, as an addendum to this, the relatavist's stance is that we can know about nothing else other than this data.
And you've offered no description of your now-famous "something", and you evidently won't stop using "grounded" without also providing a definition. You're like a pale version of an already-pale BrianMan, who used an aphorism about "common sense" to bootstrap his metaphysics of "objective reality".jamest wrote:My argument, of course, was that there has to be something upon which this data is grounded.
Claims made without justification can be dismissed without justification. You claim that you provided reasons, but all you've said is that "There must be something that grounds experience." If there is, you've failed to describe it, so it stands only as an ex recto assertion on your part. In other words, you are blowing your metaphysics out of your ass.jamest wrote:And, to be honest, I have seen no serious attempt to address the reasons that I provided for that claim.
jamest wrote:This is unfortunate, given the fact that this issue is the crux of the whole debate.
Not actually an argument, James, but a demand, which is the appropriate way to discuss your use of the phrase "has to". Your demand is of another epistemology to specify something that only your personal metaphysics demands. If we do specify where the data "comes from" besides "observations", we are asking something beyond the dictates of human physiology. You've named something called "reason" that is somehow able to discover that "data come from some metaphysical plane", which is just a tautological definition of "reason". This does not inform us about how "reason" evolved. We can talk about how "neurophysiology" evolved. But this thing you call "reason" is an injection of dualism into a metaphysics you have not begun to specify. You have not specified a "materialist" or a "dualist" metaphysics, so there you have no "grounding" to talk about a concept like "reason" that you have not yet defined.jamest wrote:My argument, of course, was that there has to be something upon which this data is grounded.
Ok, that's your choice not to go that route. Although I think you're making some assumptions there about the role of 'pure reason'. (Maybe this is natural, given the legacy that 2000 years of metaphysics in philosophy has left us with.)Surendra Darathy wrote:No, it would not, because "directly perceiving" (i.e., by "pure reason") is just what metaphysics purports to do, in its efforts at navel-gazing wibblery. I guess we shouldn't call it "navel gazing", but rather, "navel perceiving".Kenny Login wrote:Unless you consider that it's possible to directly perceive, unencumbered by any of these assumptions. Which might turn out to be a very interesting discussion.
That's beyond bad. For then I do not understand your english. If we don't agree with the meaning of the words, we do not have a conversation, by definition. We will be talking past each other. Is this clear?Kenny Login wrote:But we are not even close to beginning to consider these things.Luis Dias wrote:It rather depends upon the definition of "objective" and "factual" vs "fictional". What is the difference between the last two, and what is your definition of the first?Kenny Login wrote:that there is necessarily a subjective/objective divide, that something fictional can't interact with something factual, and so on. Would you agree?
I've seen this assertion on and on and on, but never demonstrated. And that's the fucking point of this thread. IOW, you are assuming what you are concluding.The point is more that in order to go down this line of enquiry, you either wittingly or unwittingly invoke metaphysics.
Yeah, and atheists are all closet theists. Get back to me when you can actually have some kind of respect towards our opinion.Call it what you will, but it's unavoidable. (I think this is similar to what jamest was talking about earlier, but I might be wrong.)
Wrong answer. I asked you what do you mean by "directly perceive". You do not get to answer like "Yes".Yes, absolutely.Luis Dias wrote:What do you mean by "directly perceive"? You perceive and there are mechanisms to perceive even better. If anything, this shows that perception depends upon lots of other things than just opening your eyes.
Is that the whole truth?Ah, it was meant as a joke (hence the use of the smiley face). I can assure you there was no subversive agenda to corrupt semantics.
Actually, no. My interest is much more humanistic. I am interested, not only in whether one may or may not be "qualified" to discuss "metaphysics", but also in whether or not our linguistic pretensions and our emotional anxieties are so great as to preclude having intelligible conversations with one another.Kenny Login wrote:Ok, that's your choice not to go that route. Although I think you're making some assumptions there about the role of 'pure reason'. (Maybe this is natural, given the legacy that 2000 years of metaphysics in philosophy has left us with.)
I can just imagine Immanuel Kant saying, "In before the lock."the PC apeman wrote:Metaphysics ended 600 years ago? Not too surprising.
I gave you a link to a page with a translation, though I didn't say so at the time. My apologies. Try it, you'll like it.Kenny Login wrote: P.S. You'll have to forgive me if I miss anything important from your posts, I don't speak German.
I like that. Metaphysicians as Texas Sharpshooters...Surendra Darathy wrote:Engineering is a sign that intelligible conversations are taking place, where the word "objective" means "goal" and is used in the context of "design objective", and where "failure" also has a definition. Metaphysics is an archery competition in which the contestants release their arrows first, and declare what the target is only afterwards.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests