GENIUS FORUMS

See? Poor thinking at its worst.

Take a logic course. You are insufferably ignorant.

I am beginning to get the feeling that Neil simply does not know what a philosophical argument entails, let alone a logical demonstration. Let us look at his so called argument:

1. Metaphysics does deductions on concepts.
2. All concepts come at root from empirical observation or senses.
3. To assert that concepts that have no other source than our world hold outside or above our world, as metaphysics would, is invalid.

We can admit to premise 1, for metaphysics is indeed a rational endeavour; however, premise 2 is completely unsubstantiated, for whether or not it is true that all concepts are derived from empirical observation, has simply never been demonstrated; and so it is a matter of ones metaphysical worldview as to whether one believes it or not. And finally, the assertion that metaphysics (in general) claims that concepts have an origin that is other than the origin of the world, is simply not accurate. Now, the way I see it is this: either Neil is not aware of the requirement that a philosophical argument be logically consistent, or he is simply ignorant of the fundamentals of metaphysics - or perhaps both.

Jehu,

NM:
1. Metaphysics does deductions on concepts.
2. All concepts come at root from empirical observation or senses.
3. To assert that concepts that have no other source than our world hold outside or above our world, as metaphysics would, is invalid.

Jehu: We can admit to premise 1, for metaphysics is indeed a rational endeavour; however, premise 2 is completely unsubstantiated, for whether or not it is true that all concepts are derived from empirical observation, has simply never been demonstrated; and so it is a matter of ones metaphysical worldview as to whether one believes it or not. And finally, the assertion that metaphysics (in general) claims that concepts have an origin that is other than the origin of the world, is simply not accurate.

2. What source of concepts do we have other than empirical observations? Please try to put aside your metaphysical belief that you are God while we inquire as to validity of metaphysics. Where did you get your concepts from? Your parents and society. Where did they come from? Their parents and society. Language (concepts) is something that has evolved with man for a long time.

3. Metaphysics applies concepts to a context greater than that of the empirical world. Therefore if they do not claim that concepts come from some source other than the empirical world, they would be wrong to apply 'physical' concepts 'metaphysically' or, in other words, to apply concepts derived from the physical world beyond the physical world. If you have studied statistics you will know that sampling a small population and applying your conclusions to a larger population is WRONG use of statistics. Well, concepts are simply inductions (as statistics) taken from the physical world. To apply to the metaphysical world would be a WRONG use of statistics. The concepts are not necessarily accurate and hence not valid in the greater context.

Neil wrote:

What source of concepts do we have other than empirical observations? Please try to put aside your metaphysical belief that you are God while we inquire as to validity of metaphysics. Where did you get your concepts from? Your parents and society. Where did they come from? Their parents and society. Language (concepts) is something that has evolved with man for a long time.

Concepts are things, and like all things, they comprise other subsidiary things of the same kind; that is to say, simpler concepts. Where do they come from? They evolve, just as all things do. Take the concept of a thing-in-itself, for example, the ancients made no distinction between the phenomenal and the nomenal, for it was believed that one had an immediate experience of the world; it was only with the advent of natural philosophy (science), that it was postulated that there was an external object that was the origin and cause of the sensual experience. However, even Immanuel Kant, an empirical realist who set out to demonstrate the limits of pure reason, was forced to adopt an idealistic view, albeit a transcendental one.

Metaphysics applies concepts to a context greater than that of the empirical world. Therefore if they do not claim that concepts come from some source other than the empirical world, they would be wrong to apply 'physical' concepts 'metaphysically' or, in other words, to apply concepts derived from the physical world beyond the physical world. If you have studied statistics you will know that sampling a small population and applying your conclusions to a larger population is WRONG use of statistics. Well, concepts are simply inductions (as statistics) taken from the physical world. To apply to the metaphysical world would be a WRONG use of statistics. The concepts are not necessarily accurate and hence not valid in the greater context.

Metaphysics deals with those first principles and concepts which form the foundation of the physical sciences, and which are not dealt with within the sciences themselves; concepts such as space, time, mass, energy and motion, the five elements that comprise the relative (physical) world. Metaphysics questions such assumptions as that there is an ‘objective world’, the essence of which is substantial, which is the origin and cause of all sensual experience – and which itself constitutes a metaphysical view. However, you are right on one point, empirical methods (such as statistics) have no place in a metaphysical enquiry, for deductive reason alone is the path that leads to the truth.

Jehu,
Did you reply to me? Or was that just a bunch of nonsense you typed up? You seem to have missed the point entirely.

However, you are right on one point, empirical methods (such as statistics) have no place in a metaphysical enquiry, for deductive reason alone is the path that leads to the truth.

Agreed. And where do we get the concepts with which to reason deductively? (concepts like space, time, being, existence, world, etc don't just pop into our head) We got them thousands of years ago from the empirical world. That is all they are. Once you affirm this you can affirm that metaphysics is one big error -- a misuse of statistics.

Neil Melnyk wrote:All concepts come at root from empirical observation or senses.

How do you prove this empirically? Where is the proof?

If you want to use pure reason as your proof then you are doing metaphysics.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Jehu,
Did you reply to me? Or was that just a bunch of nonsense you typed up? You seem to have missed the point entirely.

However, you are right on one point, empirical methods (such as statistics) have no place in a metaphysical enquiry, for deductive reason alone is the path that leads to the truth.

Agreed. And where do we get the concepts with which to reason deductively? (concepts like space, time, being, existence, world, etc don't just pop into our head) We got them thousands of years ago from the empirical world. That is all they are. Once you affirm this you can affirm that metaphysics is one big error -- a misuse of statistics.

As I have said before, your inability to comprehend an explanation does not make it nonsense, it simply means you do not understand. Understand?

Metaphysics has its own rationale, its own philosophical universe, logic and reasons, but as we advance into the 21st century such a universe becomes less and less relevant and with the advancements in science, less credible. There is little point arguing about methodology or terminology, as 'metaphysics' itself has become somewhat of an antique in the library of redundant philosophies, the world as we know it today, has simply 'outgrown' the premises, presuppositions and superstitions upon which metaphysics is based. This is not to say that the conclusions of the metaphysicians have not been useful. We acknowledge their usefulness, we respect their integrity, but we now also recognise how limited such a philosophy is, and how, in its pursuit of answers, it invariably ends up chasing its own tail...in less than a hundred years, people will look back on this old relic and say: how could men - since metaphysics cannot be scientifically validated - actually 'believe' that waffle? Like all human knowledge, including the scientific, metaphysics is subject to its own time and prejudices, but unlike science, it lacks the power to evolve beyond them. Its no accident that most metaphysicians believe evolution is a hoax.

z

Ghosts, and God probably cannot be scientifically validated, but you are talking about this forum, and I haven't seen much talk about ghosts, and God on here so far. The metaphysics that you are talking about is more like speculation, and speculation is important. The Big Bang theory is science, but it is falling apart, so speculation is required to get from the Big Bang to something new.

zarathustra wrote:Metaphysics cannot be scientifically validated.

Can you prove that scientifically? Or is it something you have reasoned?

P.S. I regard myself as a "metaphysician" in that I work in an area beyond science. Yet I am trained as a scientist, and believe in evolution.

zarathustra wrote:Metaphysics has its own rationale, its own philosophical universe, logic and reasons, but as we advance into the 21st century such a universe becomes less and less relevant and with the advancements in science, less credible.

Absolute nonsense!

What's wrong with that? There are many scientists who have an interest in metaphysics...what is metaphysics afterall, but an enquiry into the nature of existance. It depends where you want that enquiry to go. Science goes from the inside out and can directly effect CHANGE in the world. For example, it was science that discovered how to harness electricity. Metaphysics cannot do that, it can only 'speculate...' which can be fun and posit all sorts of answers to questions about the nature of the universe, truth, god and so on... but that's all it is speculation - and that's all it can be. Metaphysics is to science like astrology is to astronomy...

P.S.

Jeju: "asolute nonsense?" WHY?

z

Kevin Solway wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:All concepts come at root from empirical observation or senses.

How do you prove this empirically? Where is the proof?

If you want to use pure reason as your proof then you are doing metaphysics.

I don't want to prove it (it isn't something that can be proved) I just want you to affirm it for yourself. Where else do you think concepts came from? You at least need to present an alternate theory. Did God create them and put them in our minds? If you accept the theory of evolution then you can accept that concepts came from the empirical world.

zarathustra wrote:Metaphysics cannot do that, it can only 'speculate...'

Is that only speculation on your part?

I think one of the major problems with the discussion on metaphysics is that language itself tries to be objective. I am satisfied with you guys just admitting that metaphysics may be useful but that there are no absolute truths.

Neil Melnyk wrote:it isn't something that can be proved

It can't be proven empirically. That's why it's in the realm of metaphysics.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:it isn't something that can be proved

It can't be proven empirically. That's why it's in the realm of metaphysics.

Nothing can be "proved" empirically (not even this!), we can only draw conclusions based on induction.

Metaphysics only comes around when you assert that our concepts accurately reflect beyond our empirical world. To do this you would have to assert that some God or something literally wrote our dictionary. I find this ridiculous. I prefer to assert that empiricism is the foundation for rationalism and metaphysics -- that our language/concepts came from the empirical world.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:it isn't something that can be proved

It can't be proven empirically. That's why it's in the realm of metaphysics.

Nothing can be "proved" empirically (not even this!), we can only draw conclusions based on induction.

Empirically, yes, you are limited to induction.

But many things can't even be tested empirically, let alone proven empirically.

we can only draw conclusions based on induction

That is not an empirical statement. How do you test that statement scientifically?

Your statement there is a metaphysical one.

Metaphysics only comes around when you assert that our concepts accurately reflect beyond our empirical world. To do this you would have to assert that some God or something literally wrote our dictionary.

How do you test that statement scientifically? Again, you are doing metaphysics.

Metaphysics really only holds that logic has a greater precedence than mere appearance (eg, science).

Kevin,

Empirically, yes, you are limited to induction.

But many things can't even be tested empirically, let alone proven empirically.

Exactly. Namely -- metaphysical concepts, which is why I am challenging metaphysics.

NM: we can only draw conclusions based on induction

KS: That is not an empirical statement. How do you test that statement scientifically? Your statement there is a metaphysical one.

You can't take a time slice in the year 2007 and ignore the whole development of language. I don't test this statement, it is something I accept -- I accept that language evolved as humans did because it is a plausible theory. If you have some alternative that would make our language infallible (as you want it to be so your "logical deductions" hold) you should post it here.

Either:
1) Language evolved naturally and is only valid in the physical world, OR
2) Language was created supernaturally and metaphysics is valid.

Compare:
1) Humans evolved from the lower animals and are not separated from them, OR
2) Humans were created supernaturally and are God's special little creatures.

In both case 2 is what the religious people accept and then go on to use their supernatural to escape their suffering lives.

NM: Metaphysics only comes around when you assert that our concepts accurately reflect beyond our empirical world. To do this you would have to assert that some God or something literally wrote our dictionary.

KS: How do you test that statement scientifically? Again, you are doing metaphysics.

Not really. Metaphysics tries to discuss things 'beyond' our world. I am trying to discuss the history of our world, trying to provide a physical explanation.

Metaphysics really only holds that logic has a greater precedence than mere appearance (eg, science).

Logic isn't the problem. The problem is the premises involved. Metaphysical ideals can be useful as pointers or ideas, but it doesn't provide us with "absolute truth".

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Empirically, yes, you are limited to induction.

But many things can't even be tested empirically, let alone proven empirically.

Exactly. Namely -- metaphysical concepts, which is why I am challenging metaphysics.

Remember that the statement that empiricism is limited to induction is not arrived at through empiricism. It is not induced, but is deduced. It is a product of pure reasoning, and is certain.

I accept that language evolved as humans did because it is a plausible theory.

Language certainly came from somewhere, but we can never know for sure that it had much to do with human evolution, as that is only an empirical observation and therefore limited by inductive reasoning.

If you have some alternative that would make our language infallible.

That language is "infallible" is a logical necessity. For example, let's say that I define my name to be "Kevin". Then so far as I'm concerned, in the moment that I define it, that's what "Kevin" means. I dictated it, so it can't possibly be wrong. Thus it is "infallible".

If other people call me by a different name then it is because they are using a different language, and if I decide to change my own name then I am changing my language.

Either:
1) Language evolved naturally and is only valid in the physical world, OR
2) Language was created supernaturally and metaphysics is valid.

If we define "Nature" to be "everything" then it follows that nothing is supernatural, so we can eliminate the second one.

Now let's examine the first one.

"Language evolved naturally"

I prefer to say, "something caused it", just to be on the safe side.

"Only valid for the physical world".

I don't really know what this means. Language is automatically valid for whatever it is used for. Language is validly used for pure mathematics and things like the square root of negative one, which isn't part of the physical world so far as I know.

Compare:
1) Humans evolved from the lower animals and are not separated from them, OR
2) Humans were created supernaturally and are God's special little creatures.

In both case 2 is what the religious people accept and then go on to use their supernatural to escape their suffering lives.

Personally I believe that humans evolved from lower animals.

But you have to remember that virtually all the people who believe in evolution have their lives packed full of delusions such as love, romance, pride, sorrow, greed, and all manner of other delusions they create to escape suffering in their lives. These delusions are equally as bad as those who believe they were specially created by a God person.

Metaphysical ideals can be useful as pointers or ideas, but it doesn't provide us with "absolute truth".

This statement is either a tentative, empirically based statement, arrived at through inductive reasoning, or it is certain and absolute, arrived at through deductive reasoning. Or, it is mistaken.

Kevin,

Remember that the statement that empiricism is limited to induction is not arrived at through empiricism. It is not induced, but is deduced. It is a product of pure reasoning, and is certain.

It is as certain as its premises are valid. I'm not saying the statement isn't a deduction, only that it comes down to the certainty of the premises as to whether the statement is true or not.

NM: I accept that language evolved as humans did because it is a plausible theory.

KS: Language certainly came from somewhere, but we can never know for sure that it had much to do with human evolution, as that is only an empirical observation and therefore limited by inductive reasoning.

Yes. We can never know whether or not language accurately describes anything 'beyond' the physical world, metaphysical. Therefore I suggest that we don't use metaphysics to look for "absolute truths".

NM: If you have some alternative that would make our language infallible.

KS: That language is "infallible" is a logical necessity. For example, let's say that I define my name to be "Kevin". Then so far as I'm concerned, in the moment that I define it, that's what "Kevin" means. I dictated it, so it can't possibly be wrong. Thus it is "infallible".

You are just talking about your tautologies here. I am questioning the validity of the whole web of concepts called "language" that we are taught by our parents while developing. Can we use logic on these concepts and arrive at "absolute truths" that are accurate, or are these concepts limited in extent and therefore not infallible?

NM: Either:
1) Language evolved naturally and is only valid in the physical world, OR
2) Language was created supernaturally and metaphysics is valid.

KS: If we define "Nature" to be "everything" then it follows that nothing is supernatural, so we can eliminate the second one.

Well we don't. We define natural to be of this physical world that we live in and supernatural to be from somewhere beyond or outside it. Metaphysics such as "absolute truth" deals with the supernatural, the beyond our world.

KS: "Language evolved naturally"

I prefer to say, "something caused it", just to be on the safe side.

Is language something that evolved with primitive human beings who needed to communicate for hunting and other purposes or not? It is a simple question, stop dodging it. If you want to deny this then I'd like an alternate theory. Did God create the dictionary and hand it to you? Even if he did how do we know that the concepts can accurately be applied "beyond" our world?

"Only valid for the physical world".

I don't really know what this means. Language is automatically valid for whatever it is used for.

What makes you think this? Just because you never challenged it before and don't want to doesn't mean it is valid beyond the scope of the natural world.

Language is validly used for pure mathematics and things like the square root of negative one, which isn't part of the physical world so far as I know.

Mathematics is a completely abstract land. You can have your "absolute truths" that 1+1=2 and Sqrt[-1]=i but the moment you try to say the world we live in is in some way bounded or defined by your mathematical formulas you have overstepped the boundary. Mathematics is purely for utility, for modelling purposes. I suggest language is also.

Personally I believe that humans evolved from lower animals.

But you have to remember that virtually all the people who believe in evolution have their lives packed full of delusions such as love, romance, pride, sorrow, greed, and all manner of other delusions they create to escape suffering in their lives. These delusions are equally as bad as those who believe they were specially created by a God person.

Feelings are not delusions. Delusions are false beliefs. After you realize that metaphysics is not accurate or valid you will be able to get over your metaphysical idea that everything is an illusion.

NM: Metaphysical ideals can be useful as pointers or ideas, but it doesn't provide us with "absolute truth".

KS: This statement is either a tentative, empirically based statement, arrived at through inductive reasoning, or it is certain and absolute, arrived at through deductive reasoning. Or, it is mistaken.

It is a deductive statement based on inductive premises. It holds no claim to any "absolute truth" as it denies that such a notion exists for human minds.

Neil,

It is as certain as its premises are valid.

Quick comment: you are one step shy of the answer.

Right here you are making a metaphysical claim. "A deductive claim is as certain as its premises are valid" is, according to you, true all the way across reality.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Neil,

It is as certain as its premises are valid.

Quick comment: you are one step shy of the answer.

Right here you are making a metaphysical claim. "A deductive claim is as certain as its premises are valid" is, according to you, true all the way across reality.

Why can't I make metaphysical claims? You are the ones bound to interpret them as truth and meaningful.

As for the actual statement and its validity -- language evolved as a large web of concepts presenting itself as objective and detached from human beings and the world -- for whatever reason. All I deny is "absolute truth". I think if you actually tried to see my point of view rather than vehemently protect your own this problem would resolve itself.

You deny absolute truth through claims that would only work if they themselves were absolutely true. It is ridiculous.

Attacking metaphysics is stupid. Couldn't you start at something a little less far-reaching? I mean, if you attacked the fundamentals of all of, say, chemistry, you'd be attacking a smaller problem. Or, if you attacked Einstein's Theory of Relativity, you'd be on a smaller problem. Attacking metaphysics -- the basis of all human knowledge -- is simply arrogance. I have not seen any evidence that you are that good at thinking.

zarathustra wrote:What's wrong with that? There are many scientists who have an interest in metaphysics...what is metaphysics afterall, but an enquiry into the nature of existance. It depends where you want that enquiry to go. Science goes from the inside out and can directly effect CHANGE in the world. For example, it was science that discovered how to harness electricity. Metaphysics cannot do that, it can only 'speculate...' which can be fun and posit all sorts of answers to questions about the nature of the universe, truth, god and so on... but that's all it is speculation - and that's all it can be. Metaphysics is to science like astrology is to astronomy...

P.S.

Jeju: "asolute nonsense?" WHY?

z

What you don’t seem to understand is that the physical sciences have as their foundation, an implicit metaphysical stance or view; that is to say, the belief that at least some kinds of things (material objects) are real, and are possessed of their own constitutive and operative cause (properties). The problem with this view is that is has never been logically demonstrated, and though it is admittedly how the world appears to be, there are numerous logical inconsistence that arise with it.