BenYachov said... I said "Metaphysics can't strictly be 'at odds' with any physics. Only contrary metaphysical models.
I never said anything about Metaphysics as a discipline vs specific metaphysical theories.
You see a distinction between metaphysical theories and metaphysical models? Or, is your slaim that no theory of metaphysics can ever be founded on bad physics?
Obviously threw philosophical analysis we can conclude a specific metaphysical model might be incoherent thus false. But you can't falsify a metaphysical model with Physics.
That was a nice description of what it means to be valid. However, there is also the consideration of being sound.
So, I can create a metaphysical model based on a physics where everything that is in motion tends to come to rest, and that will be a useful metaphyscial model for describing the world? It's not wrong?
That is a category mistake. Like saying the Andromedia Galaxy doesn't exist because you can't find it under a microscope.
It's a category mistake to say that metaphysical models based on counter-to-reality premises say nothing useful about reality?
This is futile. Sorry about that.
I'll keep trying until you see the point. No worries.
>A metaphysics built on a false physics will not reflect reality.
I am assuming the findings of modern physics modeled using the metaphysics of Aristotle.
However, the metaphysics of Aristotle uses a physics that is counter to reality, and is not malleable enough to absorb physical notions like non-causality.
You can argue philosophically against Aristotle's metaphysics but you can make an argument from physics against his metaphysics.
That is a catagory mistake.
When the metaphysics is based on invalid physics, it is not sound.
Did you read Feser at all?
Feser's reasoning fails on a metaphysical level as well as a physical one.
Because I really believe at this point you are conceptionally incapable of framing any argument as anything other than a scientific one.
I have discussed metaphysical as well as physical errors Feser has made. You have made no serious attmpt to rebut either, except in that one discussion on the expansiveness of color.
I really believe at this point you can't think outside the box.
GREV said... In the being skeptical; what if we never come to a knowledge of what is truth?
Onebrow asked .... Is there supposed to be a consequence to that?
PapaL... Yes. There is, and the consequence is the bible. And after 2,000 years of theology and Apologetical interpretation and re-interpretation, it remains woefully short of coming to a knowledge of what truth is.
>You see a distinction between metaphysical theories and metaphysical models?
Only so far as a Model can be a theory. I don't see how this tangent is relevant?
>Or, is your slaim that no theory of metaphysics can ever be founded on bad physics?
How is Aristotle's Metaphysics founded on bad physics? Indeed it's not founded on any physics. It is based on the observations of change & the belief our observations of change and permanence are real in the moderate sense. Since Parmenides denied change was real & pretty much held the same errors in natural physics. But you can't say Parmenides got his ideas from physics. Aristotle's and the other ancient's errors on natural physics not withstanding.
>So, I can create a metaphysical model based on a physics
I don't know out of what thin air you pulled this idea Metaphysics is derived by physics?
I reject that categorically.
>When the metaphysics is based on invalid physics, it is not sound.
That is non-responsive.
I think we have further proof here you analysis things empirically and scientifically and conflate them with philosophy and metaphysics.
>You have made no serious attmpt to rebut either, except in that one discussion on the expansiveness of color.
You arguments are based on erroneous assumptions and you seem to kneejerk equivocate at the drop of a hat.
I don't conflate color with light absorption properties.
Discussion with you is futile. Thought I suppose you mean well.
BenYachov said... Only so far as a Model can be a theory. I don't see how this tangent is relevant?
I didn't think it ws, either. I was just trying to understand what you were saying.
How is Aristotle's Metaphysics founded on bad physics? Indeed it's not founded on any physics.
If that were true (it isn't), it would say nothing about reality.
It is based on the observations of change & the belief our observations of change and permanence are real in the moderate sense.
In other words, the physics of motion.
Since Parmenides denied change was real & pretty much held the same errors in natural physics. But you can't say Parmenides got his ideas from physics.
By acknowledging Parmenides made errors which made his metaphysics irrelevant, you are acknowledging my point.
>So, I can create a metaphysical model based on a physics
I don't know out of what thin air you pulled this idea Metaphysics is derived by physics?
None. Out of what thin air did you equate "based on" (indicating metaphysics will be broader than physics) with "derived by" (indicating that physics will be broader than metaphysics)?
I reject that categorically.
I also reject "derived from" categorically.
I think we have further proof here you analysis things empirically and scientifically and conflate them with philosophy and metaphysics.
Well, we found some proof that your reading of my post was contrary to its contents, whcich offered no surprise for me.
You arguments are based on erroneous assumptions and you seem to kneejerk equivocate at the drop of a hat.
Since whenever I discuss my assumptions, you seem to mentally replace them with other assumptions I do not make, I take your assessment of my assumptions very lightly.
>>How is Aristotle's Metaphysics founded on bad physics? Indeed it's not founded on any physics.
>If that were true (it isn't), it would say nothing about reality.
Either you define reality as only what you can know empirically or this statement is ambiguous.
>>It is based on the observations of change & the belief our observations of change and permanence are real in the moderate sense.
>In other words, the physics of motion.
No the metaphysical description of change. It seems you really do conflate Physics & metaphysics. It's like confusing math with physics or physics with chemistry etc...
>None. Out of what thin air did you equate "based on" (indicating metaphysics will be broader than physics) with "derived by" (indicating that physics will be broader than metaphysics)?
Clearly the statement metaphysics is based on physics either has no meaning or is just flat out wrong or incomplete.
The trouble with you One Brow is it is impossible to understand the meaning of anything you write.
>Well, we found some proof that your reading of my post was contrary to its contents, whcich offered no surprise for me.
Hair splitting over an alleged difference "derived from" and "based on" is not helpful either. Also taken at face value it's a distinction without a difference.
>Since whenever I discuss my assumptions, you seem to mentally replace them with other assumptions I do not make,
I always use the assumptions of the topic at hand. You come up with these different assumptions out of left field. How could anybody who read Feser think he was claiming light absorption properties are equated with the property of having a specific monotone color?
>I take your assessment of my assumptions very lightly.
As do I you ability to both understand philosophy. Understand your opponent & communicate your ideas in a clear competent manner.
You said repeatedly on your own blog you might not be clear in what you write.
BenYachov said... >If that were true (it isn't), it would say nothing about reality.
Either you define reality as only what you can know empirically or this statement is ambiguous.
Your disjuction is false, because both simpler propositiontions are false. It's very simple: formal systems (including philosophical theories) are capable of deducing truths about reality that can not be empircally verifed, and at the same time, if the formal theory contains no elements that correspond to reality, the formal theory itself says nothing about reality.
>In other words, the physics of motion.
No the metaphysical description of change.
Naturally. Decriptions of change are physical, therefore they are metaphysical, since that which is physical is a subset of that which is metaphysical. Your "No" was incorrect, though, because change is a physical phenomenon.
It seems you really do conflate Physics & metaphysics.
I understand their relationship. Metaphysics contains physics as a proper subset.
Clearly the statement metaphysics is based on physics either has no meaning or is just flat out wrong or incomplete.
Again, your disjunction is false, as I have explained above.
The trouble with you One Brow is it is impossible to understand the meaning of anything you write.
I will keep trying to write at a level you can understand. This last explanation was the simplest yet, I think.
Hair splitting over an alleged difference "derived from" and "based on" is not helpful either.
It's not hair-splitting. It's the difference between "A is a proper subset of B" and "B is a proper subset of A", and quite ordinary English.
Also taken at face value it's a distinction without a difference.
You must have been an interesting math student.
I always use the assumptions of the topic at hand.
AKA, your assumptions.
You come up with these different assumptions out of left field.
Part of the learning process is trying to apply ideas in new ways.
How could anybody who read Feser think he was claiming light absorption properties are equated with the property of having a specific monotone color?
Now you are confusing properties with causes. As a property, absorbing specific types of light is the same property as having a color, they can not be differentiated in any meaningful way. YOu can call the color the formal cause and the light absorption the efficient cause, but as a property they are the same thing.
As do I you ability to both understand philosophy. Understand your opponent & communicate your ideas in a clear competent manner.
Based on your difficulties with standard English phrases, I am not surprised at your judgement.
You said repeatedly on your own blog you might not be clear in what you write.
BDK -- I admit to trying to learn so your ad hominen about pedantry is considered and found lacking I do believe.
You don't know me and I don't know you so I think your observations should be a little more carefully considered.
The words of a certain poster evidenced a great degree of anger towards people holding a Christian theist viewpoint. I think it was a fair appraisal.
If I am wrong about that appraisal I am wrong.
The denial by that person of the right of people not holding academic degrees in his field to consider evidence from that field is to be fair -- evidencing a certain intellectual arrogance on the part of that person or any person.
I comment very little because I don't have the time and I am trying to carve time out to read in some of the fields.
And frankly the insulting tones of some of the posting makes me look forward much more to private conversations with my scientist friend where knowing each other well -- we respect one another.
He being atheist and I being a theist.
Write your opinions. It is a free world. I believe in and defend the right of the views of others.
I would just ask we might be more respectful. Something I strive for and know I need always to consider how I am doing.
Paps -- said -- "Yes. There is, and the consequence is the bible. And after 2,000 years of theology and Apologetical interpretation and re-interpretation, it remains woefully short of coming to a knowledge of what truth is."
So it just wishful thinking that prompts many to trust in what this book says?
It is just wishful thinking and not belief that they had witnessed a historical time and place event -- the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ -- that propelled the earliest believers?
And continues to propel believers who accept that what these men and women witnessed was historical. And that diffences of opinion will be held but basic agreement on the core of the belief remains.
I know you consider that something akin to nonsense and you are entitled to that. This nonsense sustains millions and it just might be the truth.
Since I am considered to be unworthy to post here I shall post some good quotes from a good book on physics and God on my Blog and invite people to come there and comment.
GREV said... BDK -- I admit to trying to learn so your ad hominen about pedantry is considered and found lacking I do believe.
I won't pretend to be an authority on what BlueDevilKnight intended, but that is not what I read of his comment. I believe "he" referred to Physicist Dave, not you.
BDK: "Grev he comes here every year or so, causes a commotion for a day or two, throws around ad hominem and pedantry, and then disappears."
Hmm. I'm not a student of PD's work. What I saw amounted to valid criticism, with (earned) insults. I define "ad hominem" as a specific form of informal logic. Can you provide an example where PD's comments conform to the definition of ad hominem where the argument is to be dismissed because of an unrelated failing of the argument's advocate (which is how I roughly define ad hominem)?
Grev, that was answering your question about PD, not aimed at you at all.
Tony: he did call Ed Feser a liar and a con man. Perhaps that wasn't meant to undermine any specific argument.
As I said, I enjoy Physicist Dave, but I also recognize he is a pedant. If I didn't agree with much of what he said, he would piss me off. As it is, I find him very entertaining when he pops in here once a year to remind us he got a PhD in physics from Stanford.
222 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 222 of 222BenYachov said...
I said "Metaphysics can't strictly be 'at odds' with any physics. Only contrary metaphysical models.
I never said anything about Metaphysics as a discipline vs specific metaphysical theories.
You see a distinction between metaphysical theories and metaphysical models? Or, is your slaim that no theory of metaphysics can ever be founded on bad physics?
Obviously threw philosophical analysis we can conclude a specific metaphysical model might be incoherent thus false. But you can't falsify a metaphysical model with Physics.
That was a nice description of what it means to be valid. However, there is also the consideration of being sound.
So, I can create a metaphysical model based on a physics where everything that is in motion tends to come to rest, and that will be a useful metaphyscial model for describing the world? It's not wrong?
That is a category mistake. Like saying the Andromedia Galaxy doesn't exist because you can't find it under a microscope.
It's a category mistake to say that metaphysical models based on counter-to-reality premises say nothing useful about reality?
This is futile. Sorry about that.
I'll keep trying until you see the point. No worries.
>A metaphysics built on a false physics will not reflect reality.
I am assuming the findings of modern physics modeled using the metaphysics of Aristotle.
However, the metaphysics of Aristotle uses a physics that is counter to reality, and is not malleable enough to absorb physical notions like non-causality.
You can argue philosophically against Aristotle's metaphysics but you can make an argument from physics against his metaphysics.
That is a catagory mistake.
When the metaphysics is based on invalid physics, it is not sound.
Did you read Feser at all?
Feser's reasoning fails on a metaphysical level as well as a physical one.
Because I really believe at this point you are conceptionally incapable of framing any argument as anything other than a scientific one.
I have discussed metaphysical as well as physical errors Feser has made. You have made no serious attmpt to rebut either, except in that one discussion on the expansiveness of color.
I really believe at this point you can't think outside the box.
Believe as you wish.
GREV said...
In the being skeptical; what if we never come to a knowledge of what is truth?
Onebrow asked ....
Is there supposed to be a consequence to that?
PapaL...
Yes. There is, and the consequence is the bible.
And after 2,000 years of theology and Apologetical interpretation and re-interpretation, it remains woefully short of coming to a knowledge of what truth is.
>You see a distinction between metaphysical theories and metaphysical models?
Only so far as a Model can be a theory. I don't see how this tangent is relevant?
>Or, is your slaim that no theory of metaphysics can ever be founded on bad physics?
How is Aristotle's Metaphysics founded on bad physics? Indeed it's not founded on any physics. It is based on the observations of change & the belief our observations of change and permanence are real in the moderate sense. Since Parmenides denied change was real & pretty much held the same errors in natural physics. But you can't say Parmenides got his ideas from physics.
Aristotle's and the other ancient's errors on natural physics not withstanding.
>So, I can create a metaphysical model based on a physics
I don't know out of what thin air you pulled this idea Metaphysics is derived by physics?
I reject that categorically.
>When the metaphysics is based on invalid physics, it is not sound.
That is non-responsive.
I think we have further proof here you analysis things empirically and scientifically and conflate them with philosophy and metaphysics.
>You have made no serious attmpt to rebut either, except in that one discussion on the expansiveness of color.
You arguments are based on erroneous assumptions and you seem to kneejerk equivocate at the drop of a hat.
I don't conflate color with light absorption properties.
Discussion with you is futile. Thought I suppose you mean well.
Maybe if you where more clear?
GREV said...
In the being skeptical; what if we never come to a knowledge of what is truth?
Is there supposed to be a consequence to that?
Yes.
BenYachov said...
Only so far as a Model can be a theory. I don't see how this tangent is relevant?
I didn't think it ws, either. I was just trying to understand what you were saying.
How is Aristotle's Metaphysics founded on bad physics? Indeed it's not founded on any physics.
If that were true (it isn't), it would say nothing about reality.
It is based on the observations of change & the belief our observations of change and permanence are real in the moderate sense.
In other words, the physics of motion.
Since Parmenides denied change was real & pretty much held the same errors in natural physics. But you can't say Parmenides got his ideas from physics.
By acknowledging Parmenides made errors which made his metaphysics irrelevant, you are acknowledging my point.
>So, I can create a metaphysical model based on a physics
I don't know out of what thin air you pulled this idea Metaphysics is derived by physics?
None. Out of what thin air did you equate "based on" (indicating metaphysics will be broader than physics) with "derived by" (indicating that physics will be broader than metaphysics)?
I reject that categorically.
I also reject "derived from" categorically.
I think we have further proof here you analysis things empirically and scientifically and conflate them with philosophy and metaphysics.
Well, we found some proof that your reading of my post was contrary to its contents, whcich offered no surprise for me.
You arguments are based on erroneous assumptions and you seem to kneejerk equivocate at the drop of a hat.
Since whenever I discuss my assumptions, you seem to mentally replace them with other assumptions I do not make, I take your assessment of my assumptions very lightly.
Maybe if you where more clear?
I'll keep trying.
GREV said...
In the being skeptical; what if we never come to a knowledge of what is truth?
One Brow said...
Is there supposed to be a consequence to that?
GREV said...
Yes.
What is the consequence?
>>How is Aristotle's Metaphysics founded on bad physics? Indeed it's not founded on any physics.
>If that were true (it isn't), it would say nothing about reality.
Either you define reality as only what you can know empirically or this statement is ambiguous.
>>It is based on the observations of change & the belief our observations of change and permanence are real in the moderate sense.
>In other words, the physics of motion.
No the metaphysical description of change. It seems you really do conflate Physics & metaphysics. It's like confusing math with physics or physics with chemistry etc...
>None. Out of what thin air did you equate "based on" (indicating metaphysics will be broader than physics) with "derived by" (indicating that physics will be broader than metaphysics)?
Clearly the statement metaphysics is based on physics either has no meaning or is just flat out wrong or incomplete.
The trouble with you One Brow is it is impossible to understand the meaning of anything you write.
>Well, we found some proof that your reading of my post was contrary to its contents, whcich offered no surprise for me.
Hair splitting over an alleged difference "derived from" and "based on" is not helpful either. Also taken at face value it's a distinction without a difference.
>Since whenever I discuss my assumptions, you seem to mentally replace them with other assumptions I do not make,
I always use the assumptions of the topic at hand. You come up with these different assumptions out of left field. How could anybody who read Feser think he was claiming light absorption properties are equated with the property of having a specific monotone color?
>I take your assessment of my assumptions very lightly.
As do I you ability to both understand philosophy. Understand your opponent & communicate your ideas in a clear competent manner.
You said repeatedly on your own blog you might not be clear in what you write.
I agree but that seems more often then not.
I see nothing further that can be discussed.
BenYachov said...
>If that were true (it isn't), it would say nothing about reality.
Either you define reality as only what you can know empirically or this statement is ambiguous.
Your disjuction is false, because both simpler propositiontions are false. It's very simple: formal systems (including philosophical theories) are capable of deducing truths about reality that can not be empircally verifed, and at the same time, if the formal theory contains no elements that correspond to reality, the formal theory itself says nothing about reality.
>In other words, the physics of motion.
No the metaphysical description of change.
Naturally. Decriptions of change are physical, therefore they are metaphysical, since that which is physical is a subset of that which is metaphysical. Your "No" was incorrect, though, because change is a physical phenomenon.
It seems you really do conflate Physics & metaphysics.
I understand their relationship. Metaphysics contains physics as a proper subset.
Clearly the statement metaphysics is based on physics either has no meaning or is just flat out wrong or incomplete.
Again, your disjunction is false, as I have explained above.
The trouble with you One Brow is it is impossible to understand the meaning of anything you write.
I will keep trying to write at a level you can understand. This last explanation was the simplest yet, I think.
Hair splitting over an alleged difference "derived from" and "based on" is not helpful either.
It's not hair-splitting. It's the difference between "A is a proper subset of B" and "B is a proper subset of A", and quite ordinary English.
Also taken at face value it's a distinction without a difference.
You must have been an interesting math student.
I always use the assumptions of the topic at hand.
AKA, your assumptions.
You come up with these different assumptions out of left field.
Part of the learning process is trying to apply ideas in new ways.
How could anybody who read Feser think he was claiming light absorption properties are equated with the property of having a specific monotone color?
Now you are confusing properties with causes. As a property, absorbing specific types of light is the same property as having a color, they can not be differentiated in any meaningful way. YOu can call the color the formal cause and the light absorption the efficient cause, but as a property they are the same thing.
As do I you ability to both understand philosophy. Understand your opponent & communicate your ideas in a clear competent manner.
Based on your difficulties with standard English phrases, I am not surprised at your judgement.
You said repeatedly on your own blog you might not be clear in what you write.
I agree but that seems more often then not.
Well, I keep trying to improve.
I see nothing further that can be discussed.
OK.
If you have to ask it seems you already have proven the tragedy.
So is physicist Dave still mad at us all? Too bad. Love to hear his take on the evidence. The evidence not on people's motives but the evidence.
Went and read one of the essays on his site. Actually not bad at all.
Grev he comes here every year or so, causes a commotion for a day or two, throws around ad hominem and pedantry, and then disappears.
BDK -- I admit to trying to learn so your ad hominen about pedantry is considered and found lacking I do believe.
You don't know me and I don't know you so I think your observations should be a little more carefully considered.
The words of a certain poster evidenced a great degree of anger towards people holding a Christian theist viewpoint. I think it was a fair appraisal.
If I am wrong about that appraisal I am wrong.
The denial by that person of the right of people not holding academic degrees in his field to consider evidence from that field is to be fair -- evidencing a certain intellectual arrogance on the part of that person or any person.
I comment very little because I don't have the time and I am trying to carve time out to read in some of the fields.
And frankly the insulting tones of some of the posting makes me look forward much more to private conversations with my scientist friend where knowing each other well -- we respect one another.
He being atheist and I being a theist.
Write your opinions. It is a free world. I believe in and defend the right of the views of others.
I would just ask we might be more respectful. Something I strive for and know I need always to consider how I am doing.
Paps -- said --
"Yes. There is, and the consequence is the bible.
And after 2,000 years of theology and Apologetical interpretation and re-interpretation, it remains woefully short of coming to a knowledge of what truth is."
So it just wishful thinking that prompts many to trust in what this book says?
It is just wishful thinking and not belief that they had witnessed a historical time and place event -- the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ -- that propelled the earliest believers?
And continues to propel believers who accept that what these men and women witnessed was historical. And that diffences of opinion will be held but basic agreement on the core of the belief remains.
I know you consider that something akin to nonsense and you are entitled to that. This nonsense sustains millions and it just might be the truth.
Since I am considered to be unworthy to post here I shall post some good quotes from a good book on physics and God on my Blog and invite people to come there and comment.
Respectful comments will be welcomed.
GREV said...
BDK -- I admit to trying to learn so your ad hominen about pedantry is considered and found lacking I do believe.
I won't pretend to be an authority on what BlueDevilKnight intended, but that is not what I read of his comment. I believe "he" referred to Physicist Dave, not you.
BDK: "Grev he comes here every year or so, causes a commotion for a day or two, throws around ad hominem and pedantry, and then disappears."
Hmm. I'm not a student of PD's work. What I saw amounted to valid criticism, with (earned) insults. I define "ad hominem" as a specific form of informal logic. Can you provide an example where PD's comments conform to the definition of ad hominem where the argument is to be dismissed because of an unrelated failing of the argument's advocate (which is how I roughly define ad hominem)?
Grev, that was answering your question about PD, not aimed at you at all.
Tony: he did call Ed Feser a liar and a con man. Perhaps that wasn't meant to undermine any specific argument.
As I said, I enjoy Physicist Dave, but I also recognize he is a pedant. If I didn't agree with much of what he said, he would piss me off. As it is, I find him very entertaining when he pops in here once a year to remind us he got a PhD in physics from Stanford.
@GREV
BDK was taking about PD not you.
It's all good.
It's rare One Brow & I agree on anything so you can trust us on this.
Post a Comment