Re: What is the difference between an untestable scientific theory and metaphysics
Posted: May 22nd, 2018, 10:47 pm
Gee, I just love the replies I have gotten. This forum loves to take a sound bite and criticize it. That is fun. Some of the answers had some philosophy thrown in, which I appreciated. I also appreciate that some took the time to try to provide what they considered to be philosophical. Of course, as always, there were those who simply believe they know all about science and get triggered to display an irrelevant statement, just so they can see their name in print.
It is apparent that many did not read my original post carefully, or did not understand it. That’s fine, they were probably not scientists. The arguments provided are truly non sequiturs, having nothing to do with my original post or subsequent clarifications. Perhaps this is because of a misunderstanding of what science was meant to be. It seems that science has taken hold as Scientism and become a religion. Especially with the inclusion of external quotes that some seem to have extreme faith in.
Scientism is the faith in science by the general population (non-scientists). Karl Popper called it “Promissory Materialism”. I doubt there are many Popper fans amongst those who kindly took the time to reply. Many of my metaphysical arguments are much more eloquent coming from him. Of course one must read a lot by him so that one does not take quotations out of context. He is very interesting to read and may turn some peoples ideas of science upside down.
I hate to have to reiterate my original post which was quite clear, yet misunderstood. It would seem that there is a diversity in opinion in what science is, and how we categorize it differently from metaphysics. Of course science is a philosophy and attempts to create a picture of reality as seen through our limited five senses. With apologies to Plato, we all live in a cave that has five small holes. Through these holes we create sensations of reality. Once these experiences are created, they are heavily filtered out (99.9%) before reaching the Attention portion of our brains. That would be an active string of thoughts. With this 0.1% of information we harness that around us for our use and make conjectures.(philosophy).
There are books on the history of science, or it can be googled. Stay away from Wikipedia since that could have been written originally as a high school paper. Sometimes the links are useful, though. What is science? Is such science being used in the theory of evolution, for example?
One reply asked, “how can we test evolution when it takes millions of years?” Good point!! How can it enter into the discipline of science. As a side note: evolution is said to be extremely fast. Mass extinctions happen all the time. Just look at the end of the Pleistocene Era (only 12,000 years ago). According to the lore, as soon as a niche opens up, it is filled very quickly. I Like that idea. I have nothing against this “philosophy”.
Intentionally fitting findings (non-experimental) into a model is not science. It is highly unethical to consider such model fitting as science. The way science works is to attempt to disprove a theory. How does one go about trying to disprove this theory??? I will assume that in a philosophy forum, very few get that. Back in the day the same technique was used to connect stars in the sky to prove Cassiopeia. How quaint. Intentional data fitting...what an open mind these “scientists” have. . I can make any constellation I want from the observational data in the sky.
Metaphysics does not require experimentation. I did not make that term up, just ask Aristotle. Also be educated on the societal context of the time of the words he used. The meaning of words change rapidly over time. Philology. What was Plato’s Truth in his time. But, I digress.
While we can blithely claim that there is no solid line between science and metaphysics, we completely ignore the whole reason for naming, labeling, and categorization. This is all done so we can converse and do our best to exchange ideas. Dissolving categories for rhetorical reasons is a red herring.
The Theory of Evolution lies squarely in the discipline of metaphysics. I could point this out in so many ways. Yet this would leave me open to selective quotation and irrelevant responses. Which I have done enough of in this post.
I need to figure out how to capture selective quotes and make them yellow to join this club of “philosophy”. Right now, I simply philosophize arrogantly and dismiss others out of hand. Yes I have the same jack you all do. Philosophy, however, should also provide a philosophical response to the entire intent of the original post. At least in my opinion.
Belief in Evolution is Scientism. It is a faith that can be gotten from books. No experimental proof is required.
I have no problem with the metaphysics of Evolution. It is quite creative by joining data points. Remember that data are neutral. That is they do not provide meaning on their own. It is the model used that breaths life into such data. There are a number of theories of evolution. Pick one that you like. One of my favorites is that which uses the God of Randomness. If one then asks how does Randomness come about there is dead silence, or some nonsense about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle LOL. Randomness is a God that many pray to as the reason we are here! Again LOL.
Anyway, it’s been fun. Yes, the post was provocative to stimulate thinking. I wish it had worked .
It is apparent that many did not read my original post carefully, or did not understand it. That’s fine, they were probably not scientists. The arguments provided are truly non sequiturs, having nothing to do with my original post or subsequent clarifications. Perhaps this is because of a misunderstanding of what science was meant to be. It seems that science has taken hold as Scientism and become a religion. Especially with the inclusion of external quotes that some seem to have extreme faith in.
Scientism is the faith in science by the general population (non-scientists). Karl Popper called it “Promissory Materialism”. I doubt there are many Popper fans amongst those who kindly took the time to reply. Many of my metaphysical arguments are much more eloquent coming from him. Of course one must read a lot by him so that one does not take quotations out of context. He is very interesting to read and may turn some peoples ideas of science upside down.
I hate to have to reiterate my original post which was quite clear, yet misunderstood. It would seem that there is a diversity in opinion in what science is, and how we categorize it differently from metaphysics. Of course science is a philosophy and attempts to create a picture of reality as seen through our limited five senses. With apologies to Plato, we all live in a cave that has five small holes. Through these holes we create sensations of reality. Once these experiences are created, they are heavily filtered out (99.9%) before reaching the Attention portion of our brains. That would be an active string of thoughts. With this 0.1% of information we harness that around us for our use and make conjectures.(philosophy).
There are books on the history of science, or it can be googled. Stay away from Wikipedia since that could have been written originally as a high school paper. Sometimes the links are useful, though. What is science? Is such science being used in the theory of evolution, for example?
One reply asked, “how can we test evolution when it takes millions of years?” Good point!! How can it enter into the discipline of science. As a side note: evolution is said to be extremely fast. Mass extinctions happen all the time. Just look at the end of the Pleistocene Era (only 12,000 years ago). According to the lore, as soon as a niche opens up, it is filled very quickly. I Like that idea. I have nothing against this “philosophy”.
Intentionally fitting findings (non-experimental) into a model is not science. It is highly unethical to consider such model fitting as science. The way science works is to attempt to disprove a theory. How does one go about trying to disprove this theory??? I will assume that in a philosophy forum, very few get that. Back in the day the same technique was used to connect stars in the sky to prove Cassiopeia. How quaint. Intentional data fitting...what an open mind these “scientists” have. . I can make any constellation I want from the observational data in the sky.
Metaphysics does not require experimentation. I did not make that term up, just ask Aristotle. Also be educated on the societal context of the time of the words he used. The meaning of words change rapidly over time. Philology. What was Plato’s Truth in his time. But, I digress.
While we can blithely claim that there is no solid line between science and metaphysics, we completely ignore the whole reason for naming, labeling, and categorization. This is all done so we can converse and do our best to exchange ideas. Dissolving categories for rhetorical reasons is a red herring.
The Theory of Evolution lies squarely in the discipline of metaphysics. I could point this out in so many ways. Yet this would leave me open to selective quotation and irrelevant responses. Which I have done enough of in this post.
I need to figure out how to capture selective quotes and make them yellow to join this club of “philosophy”. Right now, I simply philosophize arrogantly and dismiss others out of hand. Yes I have the same jack you all do. Philosophy, however, should also provide a philosophical response to the entire intent of the original post. At least in my opinion.
Belief in Evolution is Scientism. It is a faith that can be gotten from books. No experimental proof is required.
I have no problem with the metaphysics of Evolution. It is quite creative by joining data points. Remember that data are neutral. That is they do not provide meaning on their own. It is the model used that breaths life into such data. There are a number of theories of evolution. Pick one that you like. One of my favorites is that which uses the God of Randomness. If one then asks how does Randomness come about there is dead silence, or some nonsense about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle LOL. Randomness is a God that many pray to as the reason we are here! Again LOL.
Anyway, it’s been fun. Yes, the post was provocative to stimulate thinking. I wish it had worked .