The Science Delusion, a talk banned by TED

[pErvinalia]

OK. I thought I was expressing myself forthrightly rather than aggressively and unfriendly,...

IMO, you suffer from this a fair bit. And if I'm being honest, I do too sometimes. Intersting, I just had a political ally defriend me on facebook an hour or so ago because I called him out on censoring my comments on his offensive posts. I wasn't being aggressive at all, by the standards I show here. But I hurt his fee fees, apparently. No loss. Anyone who censors non-hateful comments in a thread complaining about leftists not living up to his ideals, is lacking an irony meter.

[FBM]

But the claim is that it tells us something about reality (or perhaps 'claims about reality'). I want to know what this is? I want to know what gives metaphysics special status among regular run of the mill logic. What's it telling me that I couldn't already work out with logic? And what does "reality" have to do with any of it?

Who says it has special status? Everybody does metaphysics every day when they decide what reality is. You see smoke and you think it's most likely to be from a fire because fires produce smoke. "Fires produce smoke but not much else does" is an abstract concept derived from observation. Consistently apply common sense and observation over centuries and you have the Higgs boson and know that it's what gives mass to particles. Again, physicists are deeply engaged in metaphysics. It's what they're about, ultimately. What is there and what is it like?

[FBM]

Physics is the pursuit of knowledge of what is ultimately real, not just what works. Wtf.

Is this a mispelling, or are you talking the piss out of Hermit. Physics absolutely says nothing about what is ultimately real.

What is the spin of an electron, according to physicists? Is that value ultimately real or not? Or is it a convention? Speculation?

[pErvinalia]

But the claim is that it tells us something about reality (or perhaps 'claims about reality'). I want to know what this is? I want to know what gives metaphysics special status among regular run of the mill logic. What's it telling me that I couldn't already work out with logic? And what does "reality" have to do with any of it?

Who says it has special status?

By definition it has special status apart from the full set of logic. That is, it's considered a special enough field, like mathematics, that it is defined as a particular subset of logical reasoning.

Everybody does metaphysics every day when they decide what reality is. You see smoke and you think it's most likely to be from a fire because fires produce smoke.

What's that got to do with metaphysical reality?? That's just an observation. I.e. empiricism.

"Fires produce smoke but not much else does" is an abstract concept derived from observation. Consistently apply common sense and observation over centuries and you have the Higgs boson and know that it's what gives mass to particles. Again, physicists are deeply engaged in metaphysics. It's what they're about, ultimately. What is there and what is it like?

[/quote][/quote]

I don't follow. Can you try and explain it another way?

[FBM]

OK. I thought I was expressing myself forthrightly rather than aggressively and unfriendly, and I was actually looking forward to having my point of view tested. If it fell apart it wouldn't have been the first time that someone has convinced me of my errors, nor was it likely to have been the last, but, :shrug: , so be it.

You express yourself in markedly unfriendly and aggressive ways. This is not helpful, in my experience. I would love to discuss ideas with you and others without all the aggression and one-upsmanship, but unfortunately, that seems a rather difficult thing to accomplish. I would also like to learn more about where my understanding falls apart, and I would appreciate the person who corrected me. However, I would not be so inclined if forced to do it in such an adversarial manner.

[FBM]

...I don't follow. Can you try and explain it another way?

No. You, I and practically everyone else have a working understanding of what reality is based on the sum total of our experiences. This is metaphysics.

[pErvinalia]

I really don't follow. Our experiences tell us nothing about metaphysical reality. All they tell us about is our experienced (i.e. empirical) reality.

[Hermit]

Physics is the pursuit of knowledge of what is ultimately real, not just what works. Wtf.

Oh, I missed that sentence until rEv quoted it. I rambled on at (relative) length about what I thought about ultimate reality in regard to physics, only I used the words "truth" and "true" (four times) instead of "ultimate reality". Your reaction was a rollseyes smiley and a very short, dismissive goodbye. I don't think a short, single-sentence assertion to the contrary is good value in a discussion. It could even be regarded as rude.

[pErvinalia]

FIGHT FIGJHT FIGJTJJJFJJ!!!!

[pErvinalia]

I reckon he's off his face on soju, that's why he's not talking to us any more... :p

[FBM]

I really don't follow. Our experiences tell us nothing about metaphysical reality. All they tell us about is our experienced (i.e. empirical) reality.

There.is.no.separate.fucking."metaphysical reality".as.opposed.to.the.reality.of.experience. Goddammit.

Fucking hell. I'm not learning anything substantial here, nor am I often enjoying myself anymore. The jokes have become stale
and predictable (mine included) and the serious "discussions" are nothing but playground one-upsmanship contests. I was hoping for collaborative, cooperative efforts, but it looks like the internet isn't the place to find that.

[pErvinalia]

Oi, calm down! Take a deep breath and start again. I'm not being confrontational. I'm genuinely confused about what metaphysics is supposed to be telling us.

[pErvinalia]

Samsa, and wiki, are clear that there is a distinction between metaphysical reality and experienced reality. If there isn't, then what is the use of the term "metaphysics"? The term "physics" would suffice.

[Hermit]

"Reality" is a word frequently used here. I'm beginning to think we don't mean the same thing when we use that word. Yes, there is a real correlation between smoke and fire. Smoke can really choke you and fire will really burn you, but apart from the things that smoke and fire do I am not at all concerned what smoke or fire "really" is. The reality of both is what they do. The ultimate reality of smoke and fire is irrelevant. Let the metaphysicians ruminate on that. Same thing applies to all experiences in my life. My "reality" is sensory. Of course it need not be immediately sensory. I have no problem accepting the claim, for example, that the sun will vaporise me in a fraction of a nanosecond should I suddenly find myself at the core of the sun. Ultimate reality, on the other hand, is not accessible to the senses, and I cannot for the life of me think how one could discover anything at all about any "thing in itself".

As for metaphysics in science, I thought Hume finally too care of that. His destruction of causality and induction was achieved without recourse to metaphysics.

[Hermit]

There.is.no.separate.fucking."metaphysical reality".as.opposed.to.the.reality.of.experience. Goddammit.

Ok. Sorry, by the time I typed and sent my bollocks, you guys had fired off half a dozen posts, bbut coincidentally we seem to have come around to "reality" once again. What do you mean with ultimate reality? I cannot see how we could get to it. On the other hand, I have no problem in regarding reality, any reality we believe in, to be a temporary construct. And I prefer to call it "(provisional) truth".