Kenny Login wrote:Luis and Surendra -
Ok, I'm a bit puzzled by all this.
There seems little doubt that the kind of conversation regarding metaphysics is NOT the kind of conversation you would have about metallurgy or about chess. Then, I think, it's a matter of personal taste as to whether that conversation is worth having at all. I think it is, hence why I was drawn to this thread.
You probably got the wrong thread. Read the OP. The discussion, the "actual" one (perhaps the metaphysicians like this wording better) is about whether metaphysical wibbling
is even distinguishable from gibberish.
The intelligible conversations that scientists have with one another do not necessarily transgress the boundaries of their field, or indeed the scientific process as a whole. But to deny that it's worth talking about the axioms of any system of enquiry seems kind of strange. Again, my personal taste.
No one claimed this. To question axioms is what led me to this agnostic position regarding metaphysics. And it's a hard agnosticism, as in, "I don't think anyone can be anything other than agnostic on this without making shit up", but I'm open to evidence. This is why I'm interested in this thread. To see if the wibblers really come up with a good argument. So far, only commonalities and strawmens. I'm deeply disappointed.
You, sir, are not straying far from that disappointment. Apparently you don't even understand the thematic of the OP.
Those types of engineering conversations are undoubtedly fruitful but may have limited scope. Not everyone discovers much about themselves or the world by finding out how a hoover works.
Not everyone, for sure. But then again, not everyone is intelligent. An intelligent man could gather much information from such an engineering feat.
So if I can start again - and I hope this is still in keeping with the spirit of the thread - I am genuinely interested to see if it's possible to conduct any sort of data gathering exercise without being bound by metaphysical operandi.
Just read any scientific paper. They are doing it
all the time. Science is positivistic, by current definition. All that matters are theory predictions and falsifications of said theories.
I'm not that much in favour of pontificating about these operandi for hours at a time, but equally I feel not to acknowledge that they might have a powerful role to play in empirical enquiry is a mistake.
Ahhh, argument from feeling. Yes, it's a pain in the head isn't it. One also watches a lot of fundies trying to get around the idea that there are people making sense of the world without any god in it. They cannot believe that god doesn't play any role in their lives. Somehow. In any subtle way. I mean, it's impossible to live without god, isn't it?
P.S. Surely people realise that comment about agreeing with everything was meant as a bit of humour? Surely?!
I'm afraid that any bad humor such as that will be taken as a Poe. Yeah, the wibblers' reasoning is that bad.