The Science Delusion, a talk banned by TED

[pErvinalia]

Mr.Samsa, Mind reaching back for a bit? You really do confuse me. My impression is that you keep making contradictory statements.

No shit. He talks constantly about "reality" but provides only a treatise on logic. Logic tells us nothing at all about reality.

And additionally, he said earlier that he couldn't think of a metaphysical statement that was based on empirical observation. Yet in his last post to me when describing pragmatism, he based it on empirical observation.

Usually he fills out details to the nth degree to try and get his point across. In this debate and in the other thread he's been sloppy and decidedly lacking in detail.

[JimC]

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Nobody is claiming that it needs to be an absolute logical falsification, the point is simply that there is no logical or rational power behind the position you're arguing for. It's persuasive to some people, definitely, but not because it has anything meaningful to actually say on the topic. It's directly comparable to the analogy of Behe having a doctorate which gives us reason to doubt evolution - sure, it's a "reason", there's just no power behind it as it doesn't challenge evolution in any way.

Why you persist in this I have no idea, since from other things you say you definitely prefer a rational picture of the universe...

This is the critical point. Religious apologists have always presented a picture of the universe which includes many of its features (including its very creation, and the existence of life) as being clear evidence for the existence of a god. The progress of science has blown each and every one of those arguments out of the water by presenting evidence-based alternatives, leaving the religious position laughably threadbare. The destruction of much of an opponent's rationale is as good example of having "anything meaningful to actually say on the topic" as I can think of... Your Bebe side issue is totally irrelevant to this argument.

[Hermit]

Mr.Samsa, Mind reaching back for a bit? You really do confuse me. My impression is that you keep making contradictory statements. You would obviously disagree with that. Can we try to sort this out? I don't at all mind being shown to have misunderstood you, read some meaning in your words that just isn't there or being outrightly wrong about something. I've done all those things before, and was quite happy every time someone managed to get me to see that. Also, maybe, we'll discover along the way that when you and I use a particular word, we talk past each other because each of us attaches a different meaning to it. Reconciling that should itself assist to increase understanding and perhaps even agreement.

To begin with, please explain why this is not contradictory:

Metaphysics is also the field that justifies the claim that we cannot know anything about the things in themselves and that the gap between phenomena and noumena is unbridgeable.

In metaphysics, the methods are non-empirical (because they consist of logical reasoning) but the conclusions can be empirical

Is the gap between phenomena and noumena bridgeable or unbridgeable?

There's nothing contradictory there - the claim that the gap is bridgeable and the claim that the gap is unbridgeable are both metaphysical claims.

What? How are two statements that contradict each other not contradictory on the grounds that they are metaphysical claims? Is metaphysics a logic-free zone?

[Mr.Samsa]

It doesn't bring us any reason to doubt the idea of god though, it just provides another possible explanation that excludes god. If I posit that Rev stole my cookies and you present a plausible alternative that FBM might have stolen them, then that doesn't make it more or less likely that Rev stole them.

It would be pretty likely that I stole them. I'm a bit of a sugar fiend!

I fucking knew it.

What does it matter if anyone has said that? I haven't claimed that anyone has.

But you keep saying "then how can we say it's doing a good job of describing reality?". For the nth time, no one is saying that it does a good job of describing reality. Do you understand this? If you understand this, then why do you keep saying that??

Because your whole point is that it could be describing reality, which is why you disagreed with my claim that it is shit at describing reality. Let's just recap for a second:

1) I offhandedly mention that science is shit at describing reality (as part of a comparison)

2) you disagree and say that it could be good at describing reality, we just don't know

3) I reply by saying that even if it does accidentally describe reality in some accurate way we have no reason to believe that it does, in the same way that Harry Potter could be describing reality. As such, it does a shit job of describing reality.

4) You ask me why I believe that science describes reality.

5) I bang my face into the desk again.

If I want to answer a question about reality I'll look to metaphysics,

So you keep saying, but you haven't told us what metaphysics can actually tell us about reality. I've ask this question nx ( ) times, and still haven't got a detailed answer.

...I've answered you multiple times now and you haven't come up with a response. If you disagree with what I've explained then ask for a clarification or raise some concerns, don't just pretend it doesn't exist.

The example I gave was that we can come up with solid reasons why we could never access reality.

If I were to complain that metaphysics sucks because it can't explain the observable world or complain that science sucks because it can't explain reality then I'd be barking up the wrong tree - the point is that they are shit at those things because they aren't attempting to answer those questions.

And no one debating you here would disagree with that. Hence why I don't understand why you keep bringing up these points.

YOU DID!

I said that science does a shit job of explaining reality because it doesn't attempt to do that. You replied saying that we don't know if it does a shit job or not and it might actually accidentally describe reality very well.

Your point was that science could still be okay at describing reality because it might inadvertently get things right some of the time and I refuted it by pointing out that we can apply the same logic to Harry Potter.

How's that a refutation?? It does nothing to refute the logic that science could potentially be reflecting some element of the truth. Whether Harry Potter does or not is irrelevant to the logical truth that science could be.

The refutation is a reductio ad absurdum demonstration, followed by my explanation that if something gives us no reason to accept an explanation then it's by definition a bad explanation.

Of course I'm not claiming that science attempts to describe reality, the entire point of my reply to Jim and the comment this whole line of discussion stemmed from was that science doesn't attempt to explain reality.

And no one, other than FBM (who you aren't replying to with this line of quotes), has said that it does. So why are you even talking about it?

Because you disagreed with me when I claimed that science does a shit job of describing reality because that's not what it is supposed to do! I've then spent the last couple of pages explaining why it does a shit job based on the fact that that's not what it's supposed to do, and now you're telling me you never even disagreed and all of your posts in this thread have magically disappeared.

You understand that this is an impossibly broad question, right? What metaphysics tells us is how to think about reality, what questions are reasonable about reality, what metaphysical positions are inconsistent or illogical, etc etc. You'll probably come back saying that it's too "vague" but if you ask a vague question then the only possible answer is a vague one.

No, I'll come back and say what I've said before: That's exactly what it does. It doesn't tell us anything at all about reality, only about the logical consistency of arguments involving the concept of "reality". But as you know, logic can be valid but not necessarily true (those are probably the incorrect terms for it; what I mean is that a logical statement can be logically consistent, but if the premises are false, the answer isn't correct outside the specific cases of the premises).

You think when I talk about metaphysics building logical frameworks that I'm only referring to valid arguments? You don't think any of the incredibly smart people in the field would have stopped to point that out?

More importantly, the point I'm going to keep banging on about because you keep dodging it, is that if you're saying that logical arguments can't tell us anything about reality then you are making a metaphysical claim. You're constantly refuting your own position. It's like trying to use science to show that science is useless.

Then my comment here seems a little strange: "They are used to argue in favour of particular views of reality.".

Yes, but that is meaningless. HOW does it argue in favour of one view of reality over another, given it has absolutely zero access to reality? It doesn't have anything to do with reality. It has everything to do with logical reasoning. Hence metaphysical evidence doesn't tell us anything at all about reality. It just tells us about the coherence of logical arguments about the concept of "reality".

Which is a comment about reality. Are you telling me that demonstrating a claim about reality to logically impossible doesn't tell us anything about whether reality would look like that logically impossible claim?

And again, because it's rolled back around from frustrating to hilarious, I'll point out that you're making a metaphysical argument here.

You've only asked the question once and I responded (as linked above), I've ignored nothing. The problem here is that you don't seem to understand the topic well enough to ask the question you want to know the answer to.

Samsa, seriously. I responded to this crap in that thread and you didn't respond to it. So yes, you factually did ignore it. I await your wibble as to why that wasn't you ignoring it.

I've responded to every single post of yours. You link me and if I've somehow missed it then I'll reply.

And I agree that I don't understand the topic well enough, that's why I am asking you to explain it. But you are doing a woeful job as I've described above in this post. You're posting a lot of stuff that is irrelevant to anything anyone has said in debate with you, as if that is an answer to those rebuttals.

I'm not doing a woeful job, the problem is that you have an idea in mind and you're using that to colour everything that's being said. You somehow interpreted what I said to mean that metaphysics is coming up with arguments that are only logically valid!

You've repeatedly said that metaphysics tells us something about reality.

Not just "said", remember, but demonstrated.

That is either factually bollocks (which I suspect it is, as you haven't been able to show one thing it tells us about reality), or you aren't explaining it well enough, or my preferred option - you are being sloppy with your language. When asked for you to show me something metaphysics tell us about reality, you just keep pointing out it's approach to logical investigation. That's not telling us a single thing about reality. That's only telling us what metaphysics actually appears to be, that is - a method to logically assess claims about reality. That is, it can discard some claims as false (due to failure in logic), but it can't prove any claim at all, as the premises it relies on are assumptions. And that's fine if that's all it does, but in that case "metaphysical evidence" is a bit of a bait and switch scam. It's just simply standard logical reasoning that is totally independent of anything to do with reality (other than the fact that "reality" is being hypothesised about). We don't need Metapicnics to discuss the logical validity of arguments involving picnic tables. We just use standard logic.

Are you serious?... You're whole problem is that an area of specialised inquiry has been given a name? That's fine, don't call it "metaphysics" if it bothers you so much, just call it "logical inquiry into questions of reality". It means the exact same thing, it's just that we give things names because it makes it easier to refer to them.

Having said all that, I certainly appreciate the role of metaphysics in explicating the various positions and ideologies regarding science and observation. But none of that tells me a single thing about reality. It just tells me about what science is doing and what it isn't doing. (which I already knew very well).

It tells us what science can do in regards to reality, which is knowledge about reality (i.e. that it isn't accessible by science).

As I answered last time, they are used to argue in favour of particular views of reality.

Stop repeating empty assertions. I've asked you repeatedly to tell me how they do this. Just saying they do this absent of any explanation (showing your work), is useless.

I've explained in detail how they do it, in the very post that you are replying to. That's just dishonesty at it's most ridiculous...

If someone thinks that the whole discussion of reality is pointless and that all that matters is that you believe the bus is real before it hits you because it's useful to do so then you justify that claim about reality using something like pragmatism - that's metaphysics, that's metaphysical evidence for that claim.

That didn't tell me anything in the slightest about "reality".

Of course it fucking does. It's a claim about reality that is being supported. That's something about reality.

You either need to figure out what the fuck you're trying to say and word it properly, or stop this ridiculous word game where justified claims about reality suddenly don't have anything to say about reality. By definition it must be true that justified claims about reality tell us something about reality.

How are you going to argue in favour of one view of reality over another, when metaphysics provides no probability assessments? A metaphysical statement is either logically consistent or it isn't. Therefore, you don't "favour" one over the other. You discard the logically incoherent view.

Why do you think it provides no probability assessments? You judge the positions on the weight of the evidence. Not all positions are shown to be logically incoherent, they can simply be problematic or fail to fully account for the same kinds of data that other theories explain better, and so they are weighted accordingly.

If you think that reality can be explained without appealing to things 'behind the illusions' and that the simplest answer is the correct one, that there is no need to multiply beyond necessity, etc, then parsimony can be used to justify that metaphysical claim.

That doesn't tell me anything in the slightest about "reality".

Of course it does! I've just demonstrated how. Come on now, don't just use this meaningless throwaway line over and over. If you disagree, then argue it properly.

Both of those are philosophical approaches to science. Science tells us nothing whatsoever about "reality".

No they aren't! Jesus christ, why the fuck do you keep saying that? Pragmatism and parsimony are concepts that precede the existence of science. They are used across all of philosophy and applied to various fields. They are sometimes relevant to science so they're used there. They aren't solely scientific concepts.

Huh? Parsimony and pragmatism aren't tools to apply to science, they are philosophical tools full stop. They can be applied to science, or ethics, or metaphysics, or epistemology, etc.

That's right, they are "philosophical tools". Tell me again how philosophy has any access to reality? It doesn't.

I have. If you disagree, it's now your turn to argue your point. No more throwaway lines, come up with a coherent rebuttal.

You couldn't find it because you didn't reply, you've only just replied in the other thread.

Christ, Samsa. What the fuck is going on at your end of the internet. Check the bloody time stamps. I replied to it before you made this dumb post. And of course I didn't reply to it in this thread, you didn't ask the fucking question in this thread. If you can't keep track of where discussion are happening, then that's not my concern. Don't get snarky at me because you thought I hadn't replied because you were confused.

The time stamps say that you replied 3 minutes after you claimed here that you had replied.

Spooky, must be ghosts fucking up timestamps on the internet.

What? Is this like the return of logical positivism or something? If I show you that a concept is a logical impossibility, you'd think it is as equally likely as a logically possible, coherent, and plausible concept? Really?

You haven't shown it's logically impossible. If you did, and it was based on reasonable premises, then of course I wouldn't think they were equally likely. That's a strawman of the argument. If you want to go ahead and show me why one is logically impossible, and then ask me the question again, then go ahead and do it. But don't play this 'gotcha' crap.

You're missing the point and there is no "gotcha" crap. You claimed that "without empiricism no way of forming an opinion of which is more likely than the other". Presenting two concepts, one that is a logical impossibility and the other a logical possibility, with no empirical content, you are forced to say that each are equally likely based on your commitment to empiricism.

However, of course it's fucking ridiculous to think that they are both equally likely - one is impossible! And that's why your claim is wrong.

No, that's not good enough. I've rebutted your answers.

You didn't even respond to half of them, let alone rebut them!

Samsa, you don't even know what fucking thread you are posting in and you claimed above that you hadn't ignored a reply of mine when you factually had. Sort your shit out. Just don't involve me in it.

I know what thread I'm responding in, I've replied to all of your comments that I know of. Link to one I've missed.

I can lead a horse to water, but if I say something is "metaphysical evidence" and it gets interpreted as descriptions of reality, then there's literally nothing I can do.

You're the one who keeps saying it tell us something about "reality". It does no such thing at all, other than discarding illogical claims about reality.

It does more than that, as I've demonstrated and hopefully you'll reply in depth to some of them at some point, but even if the only thing it did was to discard illogical claims about reality - that's telling us something about reality! How the fuck can it not?

I can only control the words I use, I can't control wild misinterpretations of what I'm saying. I have explained the position in detail and yet you've ignored most of the substantive responses to your questions in favour of snipped out single lines where you complain that it's not detailed enough for you (whilst ignoring all the context around it that explains it).

Bullshit. As shown above, your replies are being ignored as they are irrelevant to anything anyone is debating you about. When you say something relevant, then I respond. But most of your responses that are relevant are empty assertions and one liners. You need to 'show your working' if you want to convince any one of anything.

Fuck off - you ask how metaphysics can help us decide between positions and I raise the question of how you weight the possibility of substance dualism. You ignore it over and over again until you realise that you've claimed that you answered it and then you scrambled to respond so it looked like you had.

I have expanded and shown my working, you haven't responded to them at all which leads me to suspect that (3) is the most likely explanation here. I mean, just look at how long it took to figure out that "metaphysics" did not mean "non-physical" or "non-empirical".

Man you are a dishonest piece of work. This is why everyone thinks you misrepresent them all the time. Tell me, how long did it take to work out that metaphysics did not mean blah blah blah?? Seriously, go back and fucking look at it. It took one post for you to correct me. Stop being a dishonest wanker.

There's nothing dishonest about it, it was multiple posts. The discussion would still be going on (as it was about whether mathematics was a metaphysical field) but the only reason it ended was because you said you were tired of it!

Physician, heal thyself. One post my fucking ass.

And I provided that, I even expanded on it above (which was the first time you asked for a clarification).

Rubbish. You clearly are lost as to what's been said and what hasn't been said. Your whole collection of posts on this topic across the two threads are coming across as confused and jaded. Wake up or go and pester some other forum.

You can keep ignoring refutations of your position but I seriously urge you to actually read what's written and consider that you might be wrong. Sticking your head in the sand and blaming others for not being able to understand it for you is not helping anybody.

We have no way of knowing before we do metaphysics, and then we gather evidence to determine which positions are more or less likely.

Again, how are you going to determine "likelihood"? That implies a probability measure. Where is this probability assessment coming from? And how can you tell what's more likely than anything else (particularly if two separate views are logically coherent) when we have zero idea of what reality actually is.

The probability comes from the strength of the evidence, its explanatory power, its coherence, and a whole host of other things.

You can't compare something to something we know zero about and determine likelihood. You can only assess logical consistency. And as I've said, that's got nothing at all to do with "reality".

Logical consistency is only one small part of it, and again we have no need to know anything about reality because metaphysics also includes claims about what can be known (as you should well know by this point).

And additionally, what evidence are we "gathering"? That makes it sound like empiricism. What exactly is being "gathered"?

Logical evidence, as we've discussed in great detail already (probably in those posts of mine that you thought were irrelevant and ignored).

More importantly, as I've mentioned a few times now and you haven't commented on, if you claim that there is no way of knowing what reality is then you are making a metaphysical claim.

Why would I need to comment on it when I agree with it 100%. All I care about in this debate is working about what all the bollocks about evidence of reality is. I've heard nothing at all about reality (and I don't expect to hear anything about it, give we know exactly zero about it). I've only heard about logic. I already know about logic. Metaphysics in the descriptions by you and Eff so far has added absolutely nothing to that knowledge.

Logic of claims about reality tell us about reality. If substance dualism is logically impossible then we know that reality cannot look like that. How is this not getting through to you?

If you make a valid logical proposition about a claim regarding reality then that tells us about reality.

Another empty assertion. Show your damn working if you want to convince us of this stuff. Can you not see how useless your reply was?? THIS is what I'm talking about with your efforts so far in this discussion. So show your working. How does making a valid logical proposition limited by it's premises and assumptions tells us anything at all about reality. Once again, we know absolutely zero about what reality is. So how are you going to determine if it is actually telling us something about reality?

It's not an empty assertion, it's something which is true by definition. There is no working needed to be done there, it is necessarily true.

Do you see how worthless your responses are now? You are arguing against things that are simply true by definition. Your only response is to say that you don't like the label that has been chosen to describe those terms.

It is the default position and there is no evidence at all possible for or against it. So the point remains - it needs to be justified in some way. What we have there is essentially the problem of induction, which we know is essentially unsolvable. You avoid it by appealing to pragmatism, which requires you to accept severe limitations on what you can claim using science (specifically no strong metaphysical claims) and that's what Sheldrake is angling at.

Assumptions and axioms don't need to be justified. They form part of the system. This sounds like someone on the other board trying to say that the scientific method needs to be justified. You rightly rubbish those statements there, but here you are doing the same thing with the philosophical assumptions of science.

Assumptions and axioms absolutely do need to be justified and they need to be interpreted carefully in order to be aware of the limitations they bring. And I'd never rubbish anyone who says that the scientific method needs to be justified, it absolutely does need to be and that's my entire position in this thread as I've defended the part of Sheldrake's position which says that the scientific method needs to be justified.

Nobody is talking about a deist god, my example is of a very active and very influential interventionist god. And yes, there is no difference between that god and natural laws but that's not the point - it was claimed that if such a thing did exist, since it was untestable and unprovable then it cannot have an effect on the world. It clearly would so the claim is necessarily false.

I think XC was talking about it having an effect on the world outside of natural laws and processes. If god was indistinguishable from natural laws and processes then he wouldn't actually be having an effect on the world in the sense that XC was talking about.

But he would be, he would be controlling those laws. XC's position would be absurd if that were the case.

Mr.Samsa, Mind reaching back for a bit? You really do confuse me. My impression is that you keep making contradictory statements.

No shit. He talks constantly about "reality" but provides only a treatise on logic. Logic tells us nothing at all about reality.

So you think logical impossibilities could be real?

And additionally, he said earlier that he couldn't think of a metaphysical statement that was based on empirical observation. Yet in his last post to me when describing pragmatism, he based it on empirical observation.

What, where? Pragmatism is a logical point, not an empirical one. As I stated back at the beginning of this or the other thread, empirical evidence needs to be accounted for by metaphysical positions. It can even become relevant when the metaphysical work has already been done (i.e. it can inform our positions).

Talk about fucking dishonesty.

Usually he fills out details to the nth degree to try and get his point across. In this debate and in the other thread he's been sloppy and decidedly lacking in detail.

The only reason I haven't been able to fill out huge details is because in this thread I've been bogged down trying to get very simple issues across. Like the fact that a logical impossibility must have an impact on what reality looks like.

Mr.Samsa, Mind reaching back for a bit? You really do confuse me. My impression is that you keep making contradictory statements. You would obviously disagree with that. Can we try to sort this out? I don't at all mind being shown to have misunderstood you, read some meaning in your words that just isn't there or being outrightly wrong about something. I've done all those things before, and was quite happy every time someone managed to get me to see that. Also, maybe, we'll discover along the way that when you and I use a particular word, we talk past each other because each of us attaches a different meaning to it. Reconciling that should itself assist to increase understanding and perhaps even agreement.

To begin with, please explain why this is not contradictory:

Metaphysics is also the field that justifies the claim that we cannot know anything about the things in themselves and that the gap between phenomena and noumena is unbridgeable.

In metaphysics, the methods are non-empirical (because they consist of logical reasoning) but the conclusions can be empirical

Is the gap between phenomena and noumena bridgeable or unbridgeable?

There's nothing contradictory there - the claim that the gap is bridgeable and the claim that the gap is unbridgeable are both metaphysical claims.

What? How are two statements that contradict each other not contradictory on the grounds that they are metaphysical claims? Is metaphysics a logic-free zone?

Metaphysics is a method, not a conclusion. It can investigate contradictory conclusions and not be contradictory because it utilises the same methods.

As a comparison, science can investigate whether evolution is true and whether evolution is false. There's no contradiction because the validity of science isn't determined by its conclusions, it is all about the method.

Metaphysics is simply an investigation into claims about reality. Some people claim that we can access reality and they argue and defend their positions with various forms of evidence. Other people argue that we can't access reality and they argue and defend their positions with various forms of other evidence. They are both making claims about reality though, that's metaphysics.

[JimC]

Mr.Samsa wrote:

There's no contradiction because the validity of science isn't determined by its conclusions, it is all about the method.

A truly bizarre statement. The validity of science is about whether it leads to better and better predictions about the observable universe, and whether it can generate testable hypotheses about competing models of how that observable universe behaves. Nothing more, nothing less.. It is neither its "conclusions", nor its "methods"

[Mr.Samsa]

Mr.Samsa wrote:

There's no contradiction because the validity of science isn't determined by its conclusions, it is all about the method.

A truly bizarre statement. The validity of science is about whether it leads to better and better predictions about the observable universe, and whether it can generate testable hypotheses about competing models of how that observable universe behaves. Nothing more, nothing less.. It is neither its "conclusions", nor its "methods"

Yes, quotemines absolutely are bizarre.

The point you took that out of was about whether it was a problem if conclusions contradict. The validity of science isn't affected by having two scientists investigate contradictory conclusions.

If you disagree, explain why science is invalidated by differing research questions.

[JimC]

Mr.Samsa wrote:

There's no contradiction because the validity of science isn't determined by its conclusions, it is all about the method.

A truly bizarre statement. The validity of science is about whether it leads to better and better predictions about the observable universe, and whether it can generate testable hypotheses about competing models of how that observable universe behaves. Nothing more, nothing less.. It is neither its "conclusions", nor its "methods"

Yes, quotemines absolutely are bizarre.

The point you took that out of was about whether it was a problem if conclusions contradict. The validity of science isn't affected by having two scientists investigate contradictory conclusions.

If you disagree, explain why science is invalidated by differing research questions.

A single sentence should make its own sense, and not be a nonsense statement about "the validity of science".

[Mr.Samsa]

A single sentence should make its own sense, and not be a nonsense statement about "the validity of science".

Right, let's see how that works:

Nothing more, nothing less.

That's ridiculous! It's a meaningless statement about nothing. Nothing more or less than what? What are we supposed to do with that? Don't you know that a sentence should convey the exact same meaning with and without context?

[JimC]

As a poster, I have decided you fall into the category "vexatious litigant"

[Mr.Samsa]

As a poster, I have decided you fall into the category "vexatious litigant"

So just to be clear here: you quotemine me, I correct you by appealing to context, you make the absurd statement that every isolated sentence should carry all contextual meaning within them, and when I test your claim on you then I am the "vexatious litigant"?

Riiiight...

[Hermit]

Hello

Mr.Samsa, Mind reaching back for a bit? You really do confuse me. My impression is that you keep making contradictory statements. You would obviously disagree with that. Can we try to sort this out? I don't at all mind being shown to have misunderstood you, read some meaning in your words that just isn't there or being outrightly wrong about something. I've done all those things before, and was quite happy every time someone managed to get me to see that. Also, maybe, we'll discover along the way that when you and I use a particular word, we talk past each other because each of us attaches a different meaning to it. Reconciling that should itself assist to increase understanding and perhaps even agreement.

To begin with, please explain why this is not contradictory:

Metaphysics is also the field that justifies the claim that we cannot know anything about the things in themselves and that the gap between phenomena and noumena is unbridgeable.

In metaphysics, the methods are non-empirical (because they consist of logical reasoning) but the conclusions can be empirical

Is the gap between phenomena and noumena bridgeable or unbridgeable?

There's nothing contradictory there - the claim that the gap is bridgeable and the claim that the gap is unbridgeable are both metaphysical claims.

What? How are two statements that contradict each other not contradictory on the grounds that they are metaphysical claims? Is metaphysics a logic-free zone?

[Mr.Samsa]

Hello

Mr.Samsa, Mind reaching back for a bit? You really do confuse me. My impression is that you keep making contradictory statements. You would obviously disagree with that. Can we try to sort this out? I don't at all mind being shown to have misunderstood you, read some meaning in your words that just isn't there or being outrightly wrong about something. I've done all those things before, and was quite happy every time someone managed to get me to see that. Also, maybe, we'll discover along the way that when you and I use a particular word, we talk past each other because each of us attaches a different meaning to it. Reconciling that should itself assist to increase understanding and perhaps even agreement.

To begin with, please explain why this is not contradictory:

Metaphysics is also the field that justifies the claim that we cannot know anything about the things in themselves and that the gap between phenomena and noumena is unbridgeable.

In metaphysics, the methods are non-empirical (because they consist of logical reasoning) but the conclusions can be empirical

Is the gap between phenomena and noumena bridgeable or unbridgeable?

There's nothing contradictory there - the claim that the gap is bridgeable and the claim that the gap is unbridgeable are both metaphysical claims.

What? How are two statements that contradict each other not contradictory on the grounds that they are metaphysical claims? Is metaphysics a logic-free zone?

Hi!

Metaphysics is a method, not a conclusion. It can investigate contradictory conclusions and not be contradictory because it utilises the same methods.

As a comparison, science can investigate whether evolution is true and whether evolution is false. There's no contradiction because the validity of science isn't determined by its conclusions, it is all about the method.

Metaphysics is simply an investigation into claims about reality. Some people claim that we can access reality and they argue and defend their positions with various forms of evidence. Other people argue that we can't access reality and they argue and defend their positions with various forms of other evidence. They are both making claims about reality though, that's metaphysics.

[Hermit]

Hello

Mr.Samsa, Mind reaching back for a bit? You really do confuse me. My impression is that you keep making contradictory statements. You would obviously disagree with that. Can we try to sort this out? I don't at all mind being shown to have misunderstood you, read some meaning in your words that just isn't there or being outrightly wrong about something. I've done all those things before, and was quite happy every time someone managed to get me to see that. Also, maybe, we'll discover along the way that when you and I use a particular word, we talk past each other because each of us attaches a different meaning to it. Reconciling that should itself assist to increase understanding and perhaps even agreement.

To begin with, please explain why this is not contradictory:

Metaphysics is also the field that justifies the claim that we cannot know anything about the things in themselves and that the gap between phenomena and noumena is unbridgeable.

In metaphysics, the methods are non-empirical (because they consist of logical reasoning) but the conclusions can be empirical

Is the gap between phenomena and noumena bridgeable or unbridgeable?

There's nothing contradictory there - the claim that the gap is bridgeable and the claim that the gap is unbridgeable are both metaphysical claims.

What? How are two statements that contradict each other not contradictory on the grounds that they are metaphysical claims? Is metaphysics a logic-free zone?

Hi!

Metaphysics is a method, not a conclusion. It can investigate contradictory conclusions and not be contradictory because it utilises the same methods.

As a comparison, science can investigate whether evolution is true and whether evolution is false. There's no contradiction because the validity of science isn't determined by its conclusions, it is all about the method.

Metaphysics is simply an investigation into claims about reality. Some people claim that we can access reality and they argue and defend their positions with various forms of evidence. Other people argue that we can't access reality and they argue and defend their positions with various forms of other evidence. They are both making claims about reality though, that's metaphysics.

Yes, I did read that. What I don't understand - and you don't explain - is how your statements to the effect that the gap between phenomena and noumena being bridgeable as well as unbridgeable are not contradictions. The significance of your reference to method totally escapes me. I remain stuck on this: Either the gap between empiricism and metaphysics is unbridgeable or it is bridgeable. It cannot be both. You say it's both, and there is no contradiction.

Yes, no matter if we talk about metaphysics or empiricism, there obviously are no inherent contradictions in investigating contradictory assertions, but saying "there is an unbridgeable gap between phenomena and noumena" and "there is not an unbridgeable gap between phenomena and noumena" actually are conclusions, and they contradict each other.

What am I missing here?

[Mr.Samsa]

Yes, I did read that. What I don't understand - and you don't explain - is how your statements to the effect that the gap between phenomena and noumena being bridgeable as well as unbridgeable are not contradictions. The significance of your reference to method totally escapes me. I remain stuck on this: Either the gap between empiricism and metaphysics is unbridgeable or it is bridgeable. It cannot be both. You say it's both, and there is no contradiction.

They are contradictions but I'm not saying it's both. I'm saying that both are metaphysical areas of inquiry. Both can't be true but both can be investigated.

Yes, no matter if we talk about metaphysics or empiricism, there obviously are no inherent contradictions in investigating contradictory assertions, but saying "there is an unbridgeable gap between phenomena and noumena" and "there is not an unbridgeable gap between phenomena and noumena" actually are conclusions, and they contradict each other.

What am I missing here?

I think the bit you've misunderstood is that I haven't claimed that the gap is unbridgeable or that it is bridgeable. I've said that metaphysics attempts to, or can, support either of those claims depending on the path they take.

That is, I've said: "Metaphysics is a field of study which attempts to justify claims about reality, and these claims can include the idea that the gap is unbridgeable or the claim that the gap is bridgeable. Both of those claims are part of a metaphysical investigation".

What I haven't said is: "The gap is bridgeable and unbridgeable".

Interestingly, the two comments of mine that you've picked out both claim, or implicitly claim, that the gap is unbridgeable so I'm not sure why you thought there was a contradiction there at all. The second comment appears as part of a discussion where I argue that the gap is unbridgeable (i.e. the empirical alone cannot be used to make metaphysical claims) but once the metaphysical legwork has been done, what is "real" can also be what is empirical. I give the example of scientific and naive realism.

[pErvinalia]

Man, this is exhausting. Another gigantic post I have to pick apart because Samsa appears to not understand basic logic, and won't post the full quote stream of the discussion so i have to spend ages flicking back and forth to try and find what the context and exact quotes were. But someone's got to set him straight!...

By the way, as a simple summary point, it's clear what the main problem is with our disagreement (apart from his failure of logic). Samsa thinks that logical assessments of investigations into reality tell us something about reality. I claim that they only tell us about the investigations, not the underlying reality. Surely my claim isn't up for debate?** In fact, Samsa has kind of agreed with this at times by responding to these points with the claim that discarding a logically fallacious (maybe not the right term) argument about the investigation into reality, tells us something about reality itself. As I've explained (well, I've explained the corollary), it would if the premises that that logic was based on were truths. Since they are assumptions, then it can't actually tell us anything outside a system in which those assumptions were true. This is the bit of logic that Samsa doesn't seem to get, and is my basis for saying that he is failing at basic logic. Surely this isn't up for debate, right?

**Edit: just to add... I think this is causing us to talk past each other a bit. He is talking about "reality" as a concept, I'm talking about reality as in the really real thing that underpins our existence. I.e. When I ask for what metaphysics is telling us about reality, I want to hear about what it's made of, how it functions, how we interact with it. I.e. the equivalent concept to what science calls the physical. He is talking about an abstract concept. Not a "thing".

But then, he does try and say that metaphysics when it discards an illogical assertion about reality is telling us something about that reality. The example he keeps mindlessly banging on about is substance dualism. He is saying that underlying reality can't be modelled in the way of substance dualism, because some logical statement regarding it is found to be incoherent. If that logical statement involves an assumption, which it must (as we don't have access to underlying reality), then that is a fallacious conclusion.