The Science Delusion, a talk banned by TED

[Hermit]

However provisional the idea of "truth" may be in the context of the scientific method, the question remains; is there an alternative method of discerning how the world around us works?

If we had a clear alternative strategy; perhaps it could be called the "metaphysical intuition method", and we put it up in contrast to the predictive abilities that the current array of scientific models possess, how would it go?

The reality is, there is no such clear alternative, only a veneer of wooly concepts, and a lot of hand waving. But, if the some collective of the non-scientific visions of the universe was (laughably) put in a direct contest with science, under the specific conditions of making accurate predictions of the physical world, it would be a a total and complete win for science. No question, no arguments, simply done and dusted.

That, of course, is a narrow interpretation of what is worthwhile. However, it has the virtue of being unambiguous, and not the product of personal, subjective bias. No one needs to regard predictive models of objective reality as the only worthwhile human activity, but, within that specified domain, science (correctly applied) is simply the only game in town. Challengers should line up at the desk, and present their detailed predictions of measurable reality.

Thank you. For a while I thought I was on my own here.

[Mr.Samsa]

Thank you. For a while I thought I was on my own here.

Really? I'd honestly be surprised if someone thought there was a better method for investigating the observable world than science. What would that even look like?

[FBM]

I don't know anybody here who has made that suggestion.

[pErvinalia]

...and science is shit at explaining reality (because it's not what it's designed to do).

Actually, we have no way of knowing whether it is shit or good. And we have no way of knowing if there are any other ways of accessing reality. Reality is really an extraneous oddity. It's kind of pointless wondering about it if we will struggle to ever discover the truth of it. And of course science doesn't wonder about it at all. Science may very well describe the true reality of the world, but it's not really bothered if it does or not.

[Hermit]

Thank you. For a while I thought I was on my own here.

Really? I'd honestly be surprised if someone thought there was a better method for investigating the observable world than science. What would that even look like?

To be blunt, the fudging of the boundary between science and metaphysics disturbs me, and unless I misunderstand you, you are doing it. No matter what metaphysical aspects scientists themselves sneak into their concept of empiricism, none of them have any place in it. Hume has comprehensively shown the idiocy of that. To my regret many scientists just don't get it. Science is about phenomena and the patterns they form. That is all science is about. Metaphysics, on the other hand, is defined to be about noumena, "things in themselves". How the fuck can one draw practical conclusions from "things in themselves" and apply them to a world in which things happen? The gap between phenomena and noumena is unbridgeable. Every time metaphysicians claim to be able to make any connection between the world of noumena and phenomena, they are unconsciously attempting the impossible or egregiously committing a fraud. Please keep science free from metaphysics and leave metaphysics entirely to ignorant wankers, intellectual imbeciles, political fraudsters and religious opportunists.

[Mr.Samsa]

...and science is shit at explaining reality (because it's not what it's designed to do).

Actually, we have no way of knowing whether it is shit or good. And we have no way of knowing if there are any other ways of accessing reality. Reality is really an extraneous oddity. It's kind of pointless wondering about it if we will struggle to ever discover the truth of it. And of course science doesn't wonder about it at all. Science may very well describe the true reality of the world, but it's not really bothered if it does or not.

Sure, but maybe so can Harry Potter. If we have no reason to think it's an accurate description of reality then I think it's doing a shit job of explaining it.

Thank you. For a while I thought I was on my own here.

Really? I'd honestly be surprised if someone thought there was a better method for investigating the observable world than science. What would that even look like?

To be blunt, the fudging of the boundary between science and metaphysics disturbs me, and unless I misunderstand you, you are doing it. No matter what metaphysical aspects scientists themselves sneak into their concept of empiricism, none of them have any place in it.

I think you may definitely be misunderstanding me (unless I'm misunderstanding you). Metaphysics has absolutely no place in science and I think any attempts to sneak it in not only produces a weak metaphysical position but also weakens science as a valid and accurate method.

Hume has comprehensively shown the idiocy of that. To my regret many scientists just don't get it. Science is about phenomena and the patterns they form. That is all science is about.

Agreed!

Metaphysics, on the other hand, is defined to be about noumena, "things in themselves". How the fuck can one draw practical conclusions from "things in themselves" and apply them to a world in which things happen?

Why would we expect practical conclusions? Isn't that like criticising the invention of the toothbrush for being shit at mowing the lawns?

The gap between phenomena and noumena is unbridgeable. Every time metaphysicians claim to be able to make any connection between the world of noumena and phenomena, they are unconsciously attempting the impossible or egregiously committing a fraud. Please keep science free from metaphysics and leave metaphysics entirely to ignorant wankers, intellectual imbeciles, political fraudsters and religious opportunists.

I don't understand why you have such a negative view of metaphysics but we're agreed that it has no place in science, which is why I'm always quick to criticise people for trying to make metaphysical claims on the back of scientific evidence (e.g. suggesting that having a scientific explanation that doesn't require god is evidence that god doesn't exist or is less likely to exist).

[Hermit]

Thanks. That clears it up. Having slept for only three hours between tonight and early yesterday morning, I'm too tired to review your earlier posts in order to quote the bits that gave me the impression that you were fudging the boundaries between science (empiricism) and metaphysics. Safe to just leave it?

As for my negativity about metaphysics, I see no benefits in it at all. The quackery is only useful for hitting the plebs over the head with. That's why it is particularly popular with religious leaders, demagogues and anyone else out to control and exploit the masses. For that reason I mentioned fraud a couple of times, and I thought I was understating the harmfulness with that word.

[Mr.Samsa]

As for my negativity about metaphysics, I see no benefits in it at all. The quackery is only useful for hitting the plebs over the head with. That's why it is particularly popular with religious leaders, demagogues and anyone else out to control and exploit the masses. For that reason I mentioned fraud a couple of times, and I thought I was understating the harmfulness with that word.

But surely the fact that it can be misused doesn't mean it's a flawed method in itself? Some people are interested in asking questions about reality, I don't see how that's a bad thing.

[Hermit]

As for my negativity about metaphysics, I see no benefits in it at all. The quackery is only useful for hitting the plebs over the head with. That's why it is particularly popular with religious leaders, demagogues and anyone else out to control and exploit the masses. For that reason I mentioned fraud a couple of times, and I thought I was understating the harmfulness with that word.

But surely the fact that it can be misused doesn't mean it's a flawed method in itself? Some people are interested in asking questions about reality, I don't see how that's a bad thing.

A method for what? A method for finding something out about "things in themselves"? Give me an example about a particular "thing in itself", how "metaphysical enquiry" can be applied to it and what, if anything useful at all might result from that. Be sure not to slip in anything empirical. We agree that we can't use that on "things in themselves", don't we? You can't do that, unless of course you don't think the gap between phenomena and noumena is not all that unbridgeable after all. If you want to have a go at it, I would like you to tackle "Badness". Just badness. Apply the metaphysical method to it and show me the benefit that can be squeezed out as a result.

[FBM]

Not sure why metaphysics gets such a bad rap:

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:[3]
What is ultimately there?
What is it like?
The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the origin, fundamental structure, nature, and dynamics of the universe. Some include Epistemology as another central focus of metaphysics but this can be questioned.
Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Originally, the term "science" (Latin scientia) simply meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.[6] Some philosophers of science, such as the neo-positivists, say that natural science rejects the study of metaphysics, while other philosophers of science strongly disagree.

Etymology[edit]
The word "metaphysics" derives from the Greek words μετά (metá, "beyond", "upon" or "after") and φυσικά (physiká, "physics").[7] It was first used as the title for several of Aristotle's works, because they were usually anthologized after the works on physics in complete editions. The prefix meta- ("beyond") indicates that these works come "after" the chapters on physics. However, Aristotle himself did not call the subject of these books "Metaphysics": he referred to it as "first philosophy." The editor of Aristotle's works, Andronicus of Rhodes, is thought to have placed the books on first philosophy right after another work, Physics, and called them τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ βιβλία (ta meta ta physika biblia) or "the books that come after the [books on] physics". This was misread by Latin scholiasts, who thought it meant "the science of what is beyond the physical"....

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

Seems to me that natural science has been driven by the desire to know "What is there?" and "What is it like?" instead of just manipulating stuff for practical purposes. Much of physics is very enthusiastic ontology and cosmology.

[Hermit]

Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:[3]
What is ultimately there?
What is it like?

Stop right there. What is "Badness" ultimately? Show me how the metaphysician can "clarify the fundamental notions [ultimate badness in this case] by which people understand the world".

[FBM]

Where are you seeing "badness"?

[Hermit]

Where are you seeing "badness"?

Ask yourself what is "Badness" as "a thing in itself", a metaphysical entity or concept. Then just clarify the fundamental notions [ultimate badness in this case] by which people understand the world in terms of what you have found out about this "badness in itself".

[FBM]

What the fuck does that have to do with metaphysics as defined above?

[Hermit]

Where are you seeing "badness"?

The Wikipedia page you mentioned starts like this: "Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it." What is the fundamental nature of "badness"? Simplifying for brevity now: For Thales of Miletia, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle things existed in abstract, pure, disembodied fashion out there in the ontological sky. To adapt Thales' concept, they were archetypes. Without an abstract, pure, disembodied, archetypical existence of, say, badness out there in that ontological sky, they held, we cannot have instances of anything at all, like badness for instance, unless that abstract archetype exists out there. That is metaphysics. Now, would you please apprehend the archetype of badness and tell me how you can use it to explain the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it? If that is too difficult, you might try "justice", "oneness" or whatever. Try to steer away from "being" or "existence", though. While metaphysics is an intellectual morass, contemplation of those two terms are likely to break your brain.