Metaphysics as an Error

[Little Idiot]

What if that is not the agreed definition? It does not seem like a good definition to me.

Which is why I asked for your definition of knowledge, the scope of what you accept as knowledge, the limit of what can be known. You respond with a priori examples. My response is that a priori examples tell you nothing. Logic and mathematics tell you nothing other than the consequences of the rules chosen to establish them. On their own they are games. Entertainments. And you have not shown the possibility of metaphysics by playing with them. It's as if you were trying to use sudoku to prove god.

So you agree that emperical method can not be applied to the examples, but wish to say they are a priori examples. They were picked as simple examples, do we need to do more difficult examples to show the point?
I think maths is significantly more than an entertainment, thats pure BS really. Without maths science collapses, and with it your whole emperical world view collapses.
Remember in the post you are responding to I am not attempting to prove metaphysics, simply show an alternative to emperical method exists.

The reason why its not a good definition of knowledge is that it is assuming your conclusion; that only the emperical can lead to knowledge. You do understand why I would not consider that a very good definition, I am sure.

[Surendra Darathy]

I am not interested at this stage in presenting axioms. No-one here has done so...

Wrong, Little Idiot. Prevarication. Several contributors are on record about the axioms of the empirical. The evidence of the senses is empirical. The evidence gathered by scientific instrumentation is empirical. All of it is done without regard for whether the evidence being discussed is "real" or "mental".

Oddly enough, the prospect going on record about the axioms of metaphysics is "uninteresting" to you.

So you agree that emperical method can not be applied to the examples

No, I don't. Your example of P and Q can be illustrated with sixpences and coins. With toads and amphibians. With articulated lorries and vans. It's language you're playing with, not metaphysics.

[the PC apeman]

I think maths is significantly more than an entertainment, thats pure BS really. Without maths science collapses, and with it your whole emperical world view collapses.

Whoa there. I said on their own logic and mathematics are nothing but entertainments. How convenient that you now are relying on empirical concepts inherent in science to bolster your [a priori] argument. Fail.


EDITS

[Little Idiot]

What if that is not the agreed definition? It does not seem like a good definition to me.

Which is why I asked for your definition of knowledge, the scope of what you accept as knowledge, the limit of what can be known.

Which is why, in turn, I ask for a set of axioms. For example:

Axiom 1: The statement "Knowledge of X came to me in a dream" signifies knowledge of X.

Axiom 2: My willingness to say "I think there might be a monster under the bed" signifies that there is a monster under the bed.

And so on...

Which is of course your cunning plan to avoid answering my question...
I do not intend to jump through hoops for your entertainment, sorry to tell you.
If you just ignore my points or questions, but expect me to spend hours setting up a set of axioms in minute detail, its not going to work out, its not going to make for much of a discussion and exchange of ideas.
As I said earlier, since no one in the thread, probably no one in the forum has set out a set of axioms such as you request, I dont feel obliged to do so. Your persisent attempts to put words into my mouth regarding my axioms, and persistent avoiding of my simple point which stands in direct oposition to your earlier statement about 'all we have is emperical' suggest to me that you are not actually interested in comparison or exchange of ideas.
EDIT; one of the two examples was addressed while I was typing, well done. Now please deal with the other, if you will.

[Little Idiot]

I am not interested at this stage in presenting axioms. No-one here has done so...

Wrong, Little Idiot. Prevarication. Several contributors are on record about the axioms of the empirical. The evidence of the senses is empirical. The evidence gathered by scientific instrumentation is empirical. All of it is done without regard for whether the evidence being discussed is "real" or "mental".

Oddly enough, the prospect going on record about the axioms of metaphysics is "uninteresting" to you.

So you agree that emperical method can not be applied to the examples

No, I don't. Your example of P and Q can be illustrated with sixpences and coins. With toads and amphibians. With articulated lorries and vans. It's language you're playing with, not metaphysics.

Good good, an answer to one point, and next the other one; you can do it!

[Little Idiot]

I think maths is significantly more than an entertainment, thats pure BS really. Without maths science collapses, and with it your whole emperical world view collapses.

Whoa there. I said on their own logic and mathematics are is nothing but an entertainment. How convenient that you now are relying on empirical concepts inherent in science to bolster your argument. Fail.

You seem to suggest that I am against emperical method, this is an error.
I am not, and have said so several times, I have said emperical method can provide good data for metaphysics. Same with science, I am not against either of these.
So why 'fail'?

What I am against is that it is the only method.

[the PC apeman]

I think maths is significantly more than an entertainment, thats pure BS really. Without maths science collapses, and with it your whole emperical world view collapses.

Whoa there. I said on their own logic and mathematics are is nothing but an entertainment. How convenient that you now are relying on empirical concepts inherent in science to bolster your argument. Fail.

You seem to suggest that I am against emperical method, this is an error.

No. I'm saying that using science (and it's empirical methods) to bolster an a priori argument is an epic fail.

[Surendra Darathy]

I have said emperical method can provide good data for metaphysics.

Classic.

Define metaphysics in such a way that empirical methods can provide 'data' for metaphysics. Like PCA sez, epic fail. We knew you had it in you, LI. The epic fail, I mean.

[Little Idiot]

I have said emperical method can provide good data for metaphysics.

Classic.

Define metaphysics in such a way that empirical methods can provide 'data' for metaphysics. Like PCA sez, epic fail. We knew you had it in you, LI. The epic fail, I mean.

Thanks for your confidence in me

However, why would it be an epic fail to do as I have said several times in this thread; use science and its emperical data as a starting point for our metaphysics.
We had this very discussion earlier, when I used the example for Max Planck and Bohr having made metaphysical statements based on their interpretation of QM. Last time you ran off with your tail between your legs and left no counter to my post, if I recall correctly (which I may not do, its really late here now and my tired mind, being only human, may make mistakes).

Side point; how does a physicalist/empericist or what ever I am supposed to call the mob here explain how I become tired after mental effort, after all work= force x distance, and neither a significant force nor significant distance is involved in strenous thinking.
Maybe you will think about that after you show me the emperical explaination for the odds and evens (without infinite tests).
BTW, notice that the first example wasnt even hard, but why did you guys take so long to actually try address the question...

[the PC apeman]

Let's recap:

PC: I say knowledge is the result of reason applied to empirical data. What's your definition of knowledge?
LI: Knowledge can also be the result of reason alone, aka a priori, ie. without empirical correlates, for example math and logic.
PC: Reason alone tells you nothing, by itself it's just an entertainment.
LI: What, what, what? Without reason empirical enterprises would be in shambles.

Moving forward, and without resorting to empirical references, what knowledge can be obtained from reason alone? You can throw up all sorts of letters and operators but I can counter them with just as many that contradict yours. The difference is in our premises. Our axioms.

[SpeedOfSound]

Side point; how does a physicalist/empericist or what ever I am supposed to call the mob here explain how I become tired after mental effort, after all work= force x distance, and neither a significant force nor significant distance is involved in strenous thinking.
Maybe you will think about that after you show me the emperical explaination for the odds and evens (without infinite tests).

[Little Idiot]

Side point; how does a physicalist/empericist or what ever I am supposed to call the mob here explain how I become tired after mental effort, after all work= force x distance, and neither a significant force nor significant distance is involved in strenous thinking.
Maybe you will think about that after you show me the emperical explaination for the odds and evens (without infinite tests).

Glad you liked it.

The mental work is just a side point as much entertainment as question.
But the sting in the tail is that the example about odds and evens has not been explained with emperical method. SD cracked the easy one (finally) but I dont know how or even if the second can be explained by emperical method.

[Luis Dias]

We had this very discussion earlier, when I used the example for Max Planck and Bohr having made metaphysical statements based on their interpretation of QM.

This does not constitute evidence nor argument. They may have made "metaphysical" statements about it, just as Einstein made about dice and gods. So what? There is a good reason why Feynmann advised to "shut up and calculate", and jokes about intelligent interns of physics being completely derailed because "they tried to understand QM" are part of that reason. You may think you have an "explanation" for QM, but unless it is parsimonious and based on empirical evidence (that is, a speculation that will be empirically falsified with predictions of its own, original ones I mean), then it's all made up shit.

I could also say that it's a rabbit that plays a dice and we are controlled all by that rabbit. I could say a gazillion things. That's why we do not. In the absence of any methodology of solid investigation, one simply declines the effort.

IOW, it is wise to know when to stop. Willie E Coyote never was.

Side point; how does a physicalist/empericist or what ever I am supposed to call the mob here explain how I become tired after mental effort, after all work= force x distance, and neither a significant force nor significant distance is involved in strenous thinking.

Do you doubt that there is a good physical explanation for it? You should be aware that the tiring of the brain is an argument for its physicalness, not the other way around. It is one of the most energy expensive organs, and it needs rest.

Maybe you will think about that after you show me the emperical explaination for the odds and evens (without infinite tests).

We are not in the neuro-science thread, mr. LI. Stop trolling. Remain on topic. Do you have anything that you think you can explain better with metaphysics? If so, then produce predictions onto which we can confirm your knowledge. The failure of doing so will just render your taunts as silly.

[Little Idiot]

Let's recap:

PC: I say knowledge is the result of reason applied to empirical data. What's your definition of knowledge?
LI: Knowledge can also be the result of reason alone, aka a priori, ie. without empirical correlates, for example math and logic.
PC: Reason alone tells you nothing, by itself it's just an entertainment.
LI: What, what, what? Without reason empirical enterprises would be in shambles.

Moving forward, and without resorting to empirical references, what knowledge can be obtained from reason alone? You can throw up all sorts of letters and operators but I can counter them with just as many that contradict yours. The difference is in our premises. Our axioms.

O.K. I admit that the example of science was not a good example, I hold my hand up on that one. But I was using the (bad) example to show that maths is more than an entertainment, my mistake was to miss addressing the part where you said alone.

But I still object to you saying "knowledge is the result of reason applied to empirical data" on the grounds that you assume your conclusion (that only emperical data can produce knowledge) in your definition.

Why not just 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied in any situation'
Or 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied to accurate data'
Or 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied to accurate data' including data derived from a previous correct application of reason to accurate data'
'knowledge is the result of aquisition and accumulation of mutually coherent facts'[/i]
Or 'knowledge is the result of correct reason applied to established coherent facts to produce more coherent facts.

Pick the best?

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

My argument is the culmination of three thousand years of philosophy

I think a pole is in order; who could keep their face straight on reading that?

I am impressed.

Philistine.

You want me to provide a basis for the possibility of an approach to metaphysics? And I did! So what is it about that approach/effort that you didn't like?
Seriously, I'm utterly confused. Please respond so that I can resolve this issue.

You have initiated a metaphysical enquiry, but you have not provided any evidence that it can be grounded, that it is possible to do this based on evidence or argument. You've merely made some metaphysical inferences - not any argument evidence that these inferences are grounded. In less polite terms, you're talking out of your ass, and I'm asking you to demonstrate that you're not talking out of your ass. I mean, how difficult is it to understand the topic of this thread? I'm genuinely puzzled.

I'm sorry, but "you're talking out of your ass" does not suffice to negate a serious attempt to show you how one can approach metaphysics. As far as I'm concerned, what you asked for has been forthcoming. If you want to condemn it, then a certain protocol should be adhered to - namely, that we respect and respond to one another in a manner befitting intelligent adults. Otherwise, what's the fucking point of talking to you?

That's the whole point. You do not understand what this thread is about. The challenge 'is it possible to do metaphysics on a basis of evidence or argument' can not be answered by doing metaphysics. It can only be answered by doing metaphysics on the basis of an argument or based on evidence. Sofar you have been unable to identify a class of argument or a class of evidence that could qualify. You haven't even done the warm-up to what such an argument would look like.
You've shown that metaphysics is possible - but that was never the question - the question whether metaphysics could be founded in evidence and/or arguments.