Metaphysics is necessary

[Matthew Shute]

Metaphysics is a prerequisite for the art of "making shit up and pretending that we're gaining access to the secrets of reality". Metaphysics allows for an airy indifference towards notions of evidence. While making shit up is necessary to creative writing, the assertions about special access are probably less so...

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Ah, more mud. Why seek empirical evidence of metaphysical claims?

Why indeed. *drum roll* What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And there I was, thinking that my little thread had died and gone to Thread Heaven. Ah, Matt, you've presented the Central Theorem of Metaphysical Calculus! And not a moment too soon!

Metaphysics is necessary in order to seek out new worlds, and to boldly split infinitives where no one has split them before.

Even if we would be wrong, we would be infinitely more interesting than our opponents. For all their posturing, for all their 'creative writing?' what do they come up with? Whatever happened to the ever-living fire? Where are you Herakleitos? Weep with us for the drollness of our opposition!

[Trolldor]

If there is one thing that should be noted, it is that there are no qualifications to becoming a practicing Metaphysician.

[GrahamH]

[hackenslash]

It depends entirely on precisely how you're defining 'metaphysics'. For example, cosmology is metaphysics under a given definition. Is cosmology necessary? Certainly, if it is thought that knowledge and understanding are necessary. Is wibble necessary? Certainly not, although it can provide some insight, not least insight into the mind of the wibbler.

[FBM]

Piles and piles of miles and miles of words strung together, with all the Pyles and Miles dead certain that they mean something.

[Matthew Shute]

It depends entirely on precisely how you're defining 'metaphysics'. For example, cosmology is metaphysics under a given definition. Is cosmology necessary? Certainly, if it is thought that knowledge and understanding are necessary. Is wibble necessary? Certainly not, although it can provide some insight, not least insight into the mind of the wibbler.

A line from the introduction of Wikipedia's metaphysics page: "Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence."

People talk about the "true" nature of "existence" in a way that renders empirical evidence non-applicable, often without even bothering to define what they mean by "existence". This is what some of us are criticising, or even (in the case of this thread) openly ridiculing. I don't think anybody has a grievance with scientific study or discovery about physics and the cosmos.

Also see the excellent "Metaphysics as an error" thread, and its sequel.

[Trolldor]

Science "Red shift and the Big Bang."

Metaphysics "Cause."

[Pappa]

Is this brief definition of metaphysics from Wiki accurate?

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

[Feck]

Piles and piles of miles and miles of words strung together, with all the Pyles and Miles dead certain that they mean something.

Ah but first we have to argue about the meaning of "dead" "certain" and both "some" and "thing"

[FBM]

Piles and piles of miles and miles of words strung together, with all the Pyles and Miles dead certain that they mean something.

Ah but first we have to argue about the meaning of "dead" "certain" and both "some" and "thing"

What's the ontological significance, precisely, of 'of', anyway? I think we have to start with the function words first, as they are the foundation that makes the content words coherent.

In empirical plain-speak:

[charlou]

Is this brief definition of metaphysics from Wiki accurate?

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Oxymoronic, isn't it.

[jamest]

Is this brief definition of metaphysics from Wiki accurate?

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Oxymoronic, isn't it.

It's only "oxymoronic" if one considers science to be of any metaphysical value. That is, it's only oxymoronic if you haven't got a clue about metaphysics.

[Twiglet]

It's only "oxymoronic" if one considers science to be of any metaphysical value. That is, it's only oxymoronic if you haven't got a clue about metaphysics.

Keep doing the science, and eventually the philosophy catches up

Newton was chased up by a couple of hundred years of determinism, quantum physics spawned endless freewill/new age type interpretations. If some grand slam comes along to undermine the fundamental randomness of QP, then doubtless the metaphysicians will revert back to classical arguments.

Philosophy can provide some useful criticism to science, and it is great at expanding and explaining the implications of scientific theory (ok, well sometimes great) - and using it to draw parallels - ideas like Paradigm shift (Paul Feyerabend) or Poppers work on QP/determinism and the philosophy of science.

Classical metaphysics dates back to ancient Greece and probably long before that in other cultures. Science has moved on a bit since then. I believe a sustainable argument could be made for metaphysics being "the philosophy of the gaps" these days.

[Pappa]

Is this brief definition of metaphysics from Wiki accurate?

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Oxymoronic, isn't it.

It's only "oxymoronic" if one considers science to be of any metaphysical value. That is, it's only oxymoronic if you haven't got a clue about metaphysics.

I was thinking... "What the hell transcends science?"