Metaphysics as an Error

[GrahamH]

Again, you don't appear to be on the ball, so to speak.

The mods have asked us very nicely to quit saying this kind of thing. Let's try and do that. I'm guilty of it myself.

Not 'being on the ball' only implies that his mind is focussed upon a different issue. At least, that's how I intended it to be meant. It wasn't a derogatory remark. If he thinks that it was, I will apologise to him personally.

They have tighter standards here. At least on this thread. Just stop being personal. If you leave this sort of thing out then there wont be any question about your intent.

I took no offence at the 'not on the ball' remark. To be honest, I haven't seen Jamest's metaphysical ball at any stage in the whole match. Even when he claimed to have scored a goal there seemed to be no ball at the back of the net.

If I have missed the point I would rather know.

[GrahamH]

What I do know for sure is that the world of appearance is not what or as it appears to be, and that this gives validity to the question 'what the fuck do we know?' Which in turn justifies an attempt to figure out what can be known beyond the emperical investigation of appearance.
I also know that the sceptical answer is to say 'we dont know how much can be known' which does not rule out the validity of the enquiry.

Ignorance isn't knowledge. 'What the fuck do we know' isn't metaphysics, nor a justification for it.

[Little Idiot]

Yes, and thank the JS that ....

Thats good

[Little Idiot]

What I do know for sure is that the world of appearance is not what or as it appears to be, and that this gives validity to the question 'what the fuck do we know?' Which in turn justifies an attempt to figure out what can be known beyond the emperical investigation of appearance.
I also know that the sceptical answer is to say 'we dont know how much can be known' which does not rule out the validity of the enquiry.

Ignorance isn't knowledge. 'What the fuck do we know' isn't metaphysics, nor a justification for it.

I agree that its not metaphysics, but I ask why it cant be a justification for it?

If we dont know, are we not entitled to try find out? Should we not try find out? Isnt it the rational conclusion of scepticism; Things are not as they seem, so what is really going on here?

[Luis Dias]

What I do know for sure is that the world of appearance is not what or as it appears to be, and that this gives validity to the question 'what the fuck do we know?' Which in turn justifies an attempt to figure out what can be known beyond the emperical investigation of appearance.

Non sequitur.

You can ponder about what you "do" know, and you can even ponder what it means to "know". I've given my own plagiarized version of knowledge, that knowledge is not understanding, but the ability to change things.

How do we know that a child knows what a door is?

Because when we point to a door, she says "door". She knows what a door is. She doesn't "understand it", and here we begin to understand how exotic such a concept "really is". Perhaps, we also do not "understand" what a door "really is". A door is a passage. Or a bunch of wood. Or glass. Perhaps a door is just a line in a design sketch.

I also know that the sceptical answer is to say 'we dont know how much can be known' which does not rule out the validity of the enquiry.

It does not rule out anything, LI. You have been told this innumerous times.

For instance, one does not rule out that there are unicorns, for we haven't been in all places in the universe. We haven't "falsified" unicorns. We can't do it. The relevant question is not if metaphysics is to be "ruled out", but if metaphysics is to be ignored and dismissed by pragmatic concerns just as unicorns and ghosts are.

The discussion appears to go that way.

[GrahamH]

What I do know for sure is that the world of appearance is not what or as it appears to be, and that this gives validity to the question 'what the fuck do we know?' Which in turn justifies an attempt to figure out what can be known beyond the emperical investigation of appearance.
I also know that the sceptical answer is to say 'we dont know how much can be known' which does not rule out the validity of the enquiry.

Ignorance isn't knowledge. 'What the fuck do we know' isn't metaphysics, nor a justification for it.

I agree that its not metaphysics, but I ask why it cant be a justification for it?

If we dont know, are we not entitled to try find out? Should we not try find out? Isnt it the rational conclusion of scepticism; Things are not as they seem, so what is really going on here?

How do propose to 'try to find out'?

Having a way to find out would constitute a justification for metaphysics.

[Luis Dias]

I agree that its not metaphysics, but I ask why it cant be a justification for it?

Ignorance is not a justification for anything.

If we dont know, are we not entitled to try find out? Should we not try find out? Isnt it the rational conclusion of scepticism; Things are not as they seem, so what is really going on here?

Before you go on wasting time in any given research program, you should ask this question, is this methodology that I use in the program sound? Will it get me anywhere?

Now, we are not speaking in a vacuum. We have thousands of years of metaphysical thinking, and empirically, we can see that it's mainly rubbish. In fact, it's all rubbish. People spent and wasted millions of otherwise useful hours in counting angels dancing on top of pinheads, glorifying infinite perfect beings.

So we do know, empirically, that such methodology does not get us anywhere. Therefore, this research program that you are suggesting is a waste of time.

[SpeedOfSound]

What I do know for sure is that the world of appearance is not what or as it appears to be, and that this gives validity to the question 'what the fuck do we know?' Which in turn justifies an attempt to figure out what can be known beyond the emperical investigation of appearance.
I also know that the sceptical answer is to say 'we dont know how much can be known' which does not rule out the validity of the enquiry.

Right it's not what it appear to be. That's what physicist and neurologists study. But I don't go beyond the empirical until two things happen.

1. I have exhausted all empirical methods for explaining something.
2. I find a basis for metaphysics.

I'm working, everyday, on 1. and making progress. I suspect you are working on 2. But I see no progress.

[Little Idiot]

Scepticism, doubly so this particular type of scepticism mentioned in this thread, does not commit to a position; it is basically to point out that we dont know, right?

But 'metaphysics is an error' or 'you cant do metaphysics' is a very definite position, and therefore not the real position of a true sceptic, which should be 'we dont know if we can do metaphysics' and 'we dont know if metaphysics is an error'

This is a good retort. Mind us all, this is the same thing that we get from theists all the time, how on earth are you a "skeptic" and an "atheist", isn't atheism a position not of skepticism but a positive conclusion itself?

Well, yes and no. Atheism rises up with skepticism, not the other way around. Skepticism is the basis of either atheism and of metaphysical "denial".

Now, we should pause and ponder. What is skepticism? It is to be doubtful of the positive claims that are espoused, and in particular, the possibility of doing metaphysics. Here, we will find people really skeptical of this possibility, which means two things: one, that if forced to "jump" to a conclusion, these people will say that "metaphysics is impossible", two, that if asked about their agnosticism, they (we?) will say, "I am open to debate, and I'm even interested in hearing if there's actually a case for metaphysics".

is that actually whats going on? A fair and neutral listening to the argument followed by assessment of the argument for metaphysics?
Or is it a show-trial where the 'jury' has already decided?

Thus the denial of metaphysics should be read by the metaphysicians as a challenge, as a question asking for an answer, a convincing case. We, the skeptics, what we are really doing is putting metaphysics under the spotlight and making an inquisition, we are stressing it and see if it endures pain. Apparently, it does not.

We enjoy parsimony. We hate superfluous entities, superfluous theories, variables without consequence, tautologies without further information, wasted time with mumbo jumbo. We, the skeptics, enjoy the culling of bad ideas. We are enjoying metaphysics destruction.

Parsimony is an over-rated and emperically invalid principle; it is not a hard and fast rule and it is not established because it is often wrong.
More complex does not equal superflous.

Therefore the position; "I am a sceptic, you can not do metaphysics, and the burden of proof is on you to show how metaphysics is possible" is incoherent and self contradictory.

Yes, and thank the JS that this is the worst caricature of what's been happening here. We the skeptics are placing metaphysics under scrutiny. We are asking, is there any convincing case for it? This is all that we are asking. And as an answer, we get incredulity, indignation and whining... it sure doesn't make a good case.

A good case would require an open ear and impartial judgement.

If it is not Scepticism, which is a U-turn; then an argument needs to be presented and defended; showing why it is so, not just passing the burden of proof to one who wishes to do metaphysics?
After all proving something can not be done is very difficult.

That's why the quest should be taken in the opposite direction, one should show how it is possible. Thanks, you've just argued for me.

Welcome, as long as we note that agree its hard to prove it cant be done.
Isnt a simple proof to do metaphysics?
If you say 'its impossible to scale that wall without a rope', and I scale the wall without a rope, that would settle the argument, right?

[GrahamH]

Isnt a simple proof to do metaphysics?
If you say 'its impossible to scale that wall without a rope', and I scale the wall without a rope, that would settle the argument, right?

No, 'doing metaphyiscs' isn't going to validate metaphysics, is it? How can it be assessed? How do you tell if your metaphysical idea is valid or not?

If you actually scale the wall you have empirical proof that you scaled the wall. You want people to accept the claim that you could scale the wall by means unseen and without us observing you doing the deed.

[Little Idiot]

What I do know for sure is that the world of appearance is not what or as it appears to be, and that this gives validity to the question 'what the fuck do we know?' Which in turn justifies an attempt to figure out what can be known beyond the emperical investigation of appearance.
I also know that the sceptical answer is to say 'we dont know how much can be known' which does not rule out the validity of the enquiry.

Right it's not what it appear to be. That's what physicist and neurologists study. But I don't go beyond the empirical until two things happen.

1. I have exhausted all empirical methods for explaining something.
2. I find a basis for metaphysics.

I'm working, everyday, on 1. and making progress. I suspect you are working on 2. But I see no progress.

I dont spend all day working on 2, I tend to just go ahead and do the metaphysics. I judge it by its results, not by its basis.
Obviously, these results may not be emperically demonstrable, although in some cases this may be possible. We come full circle to aquiring knowledge by other methods as well as emperical, and if you start from the position that only emperical can be knowledge, there are huge chunks of knowledge you rule out. Such as much of maths which is a topic we alrady talked about.

[Little Idiot]

Isnt a simple proof to do metaphysics?
If you say 'its impossible to scale that wall without a rope', and I scale the wall without a rope, that would settle the argument, right?

No, 'doing metaphyiscs' isn't going to validate metaphysics, is it? How can it be assessed? How do you tell if your metaphysical idea is valid or not?

If you actually scale the wall you have empirical proof that you scaled the wall. You want people to accept the claim that you could scale the wall by means unseen and without us observing you doing the deed.

I could point out to you how the wall would be scaled by a hypothetical climber; hand holds, foot holds, calculations of the weight of the climber and the shear strenght of the holds and so on. I could without climbing, demonstrate that it could be climbed.

[Little Idiot]

Enjoyed the chat, gotta go, bbl.

[SpeedOfSound]

is that actually whats going on? A fair and neutral listening to the argument followed by assessment of the argument for metaphysics?
Or is it a show-trial where the 'jury' has already decided?

This isn't court. There is no jury and no judg.

The idea is for your 'A team' to show us the basis. So far what has been put forth doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

When I tried to get jamest to answer a few questions about his idea did you see what happened? It's not very convincing when someone refuses to answer questions because it's not going in the direction he wants it to.

Same with you. I summed up your arguments yesterday and I doubt you even read the post. I asked you repeatedly about Penrose and empiricism. No response.

If you feel you still have an argument you two should clearly lay it out again and then listen and respond directly to the criticisms and further questioning.

[GrahamH]

Isnt a simple proof to do metaphysics?
If you say 'its impossible to scale that wall without a rope', and I scale the wall without a rope, that would settle the argument, right?

No, 'doing metaphyiscs' isn't going to validate metaphysics, is it? How can it be assessed? How do you tell if your metaphysical idea is valid or not?

If you actually scale the wall you have empirical proof that you scaled the wall. You want people to accept the claim that you could scale the wall by means unseen and without us observing you doing the deed.

I could point out to you how the wall would be scaled by a hypothetical climber; hand holds, foot holds, calculations of the weight of the climber and the shear strenght of the holds and so on. I could without climbing, demonstrate that it could be climbed.

You could do that, by reference to empirical data about 'climbers' and 'climbing', but that would be a retreat to empiricism, not metaphysics.
A metaphysical claim might be that you could simply walk through the wall, since atoms are 'actually mostly empty space'. But then you would just hurt your face on the empirical wall.