Testable Predictions of Metaphysics? (Split from Richard Dawkins Documentary - Enemies of Reason)

[iNow]

Can anyone name a single testable prediction that has ever been made using metaphysics? If not, then I think all arguments in its favor here are rendered immediately moot.

[Semjase]

Can anyone name a single testable prediction that has ever been made using metaphysics? If not, then I think all arguments in its favor here are rendered immediately moot.

 

If the science of metaphysics is not known how can a prediction be made? But provable examples of metaphysics are are known. For example the real image we see in front of us, how can that be expained by the function of brain chemistry alone? How can chemistry create that image? Intuition is another example of metaphysics, there are numerous example of lives being saved and criminal cases being solved through intuition. Intuition is proven to work but the science is not known.

[krash661]

Intuition is another example of metaphysics, there are numerous example of lives being saved and criminal cases being solved through intuition. Intuition is proven to work but the science is not known.

umm, not at all,

criminal cases are solved from evidence.

they maybe lead by intuition but not solved.

[Moontanman]

If the science of metaphysics is not known how can a prediction be made?

Anyone can make a prediction Semjase, I will predict a major earthquake will occur in the next month on the pacific rim... The key is to make lots of prediction about things that are either likely to happen or obscure enough to apply to many things, then the laws of chance kick in and I'll be right on at least some of them, the ones I'm wrong on are ignored, sampling bias.

But provable examples of metaphysics are are known. For example the real image we see in front of us, how can that be expained by the function of brain chemistry alone? How can chemistry create that image?

Actually yes, eyesight is explained by chemistry...

Intuition is another example of metaphysics, there are numerous example of lives being saved and criminal cases being solved through intuition. Intuition is proven to work but the science is not known.

I think krash has already answered that one...

[Moontanman]

i couldn't help to laugh when i saw that and her comment.

for someone who as direct contact with alien god,

sure is ignorant.

 

I try to give her the benefit of the doubt, when I was young I was all over the map with this stuff, it's easy to get caught up in mysticism by reading books, I am sure the internet has increased that by several orders of magnitude. Anyone with a keyboard and a pulse can post anything they like, has to be confusing...

 

It should also be noted that threads like this attract charlatans like a magnet attracts iron filings. Dawkins has tweaked the noses of quite a few people who want to feel special by claiming special knowledge above the keen of normal humans. A huge number of people want to spread the illusion of knowledge instead of actually acquiring knowledge. As my signature says:

 

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge.” — Stephen Hawking

 

 

These people are dangerous not just annoying, they mislead, misdirect, make grandiose claims that cannot be backed up and ridicule anyone calls them on it to make the questioner look stupid. It's dishonesty pure and simple....

[iNow]

If the science of metaphysics is not known how can a prediction be made? But provable examples of metaphysics are are known. For example the real image we see in front of us, how can that be expained by the function of brain chemistry alone? How can chemistry create that image? Intuition is another example of metaphysics, there are numerous example of lives being saved and criminal cases being solved through intuition. Intuition is proven to work but the science is not known.

 

It would have saved us all a lot of time if you had simply replied, "No, I cannot name a single testable prediction that has ever been made using metaphysics." Your personal incredulity regarding how the world works doesn't impress me, btw.

 

FWIW... Intuition is quite easily explainable with basic science, actually... as is the brain chemistry of vision. Saying you haven't spent enough time learning about it is hardly a quality argument that metaphysics is worth anyone's time.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Posts split from here. Please remember that threads are to remain on topic and civil.

 

krash661, that last part applies particularly to you.

 

As always, any queries with this note should be directed to staff via the report function.

 

Edit: I have temporarily closed this thread for staff review.

[ydoaPs]

Can anyone name a single testable prediction that has ever been made using metaphysics? If not, then I think all arguments in its favor here are rendered immediately moot.

There are a few (such as Poisson's Spot when people were wondering about the nature of light). The thing is, when metaphysics is done right, it's hard to distinguish from straight up higher order multi-modal logic and/or straight up physics (depending on what you're doing).

how can that be expained by the function of brain chemistry alone?

Hierarchical Temporal Memory models are doing fairly well. I've got something I'm working on now that will fill in some of the gaps, but I've not published it yet.

How can chemistry create that image?

Patterns of patterns.

Intuition is another example of metaphysics, there are numerous example of lives being saved and criminal cases being solved through intuition. Intuition is proven to work but the science is not known.

No. A thousand times no. Intuition is complete hogwash and is wrong most of the time. Intuition says that the Earth is flat. Intuition says that if you swing a ball around your head on a rope and cut the rope mid-swing that the ball will go off in a curved horizontal trajectory. Intuition says human memory works well. Intuition says that objects in motion will eventually stop without external forces being applied. All of those intuitions are wrong.

 

And then there's that intuition is completely dependent on factors that are not truth tracking, such as culture, the order i which questions are asked, a person's mood, how clean their local environment is, etc.

 

Experimental philosophy cannot be ignored. When people like you ignore it, you get nonsense.

Here's a metaphyscis mind blower

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBwiSWkjHlA

Magic tricks have absolutely nothing to do with metaphysics.

 

!

Moderator Note

As such, I'm splitting the posts about Criss Angel to anther thread.

[PeterJ]

My thoughts are a bit confused on this because it is debatable what would count as a prediction. It's something I'm still exploring.

 

Metaphysics predicts, one might say, that without metaphysics a fundamental theory of anything is impossible. It predicts that physics will never be able to answer questions about the size of the universe, its origin, the nature of time and space, consciousness, the origin of the laws of physics and many other things.

 

Whether these are scientific predictions I'm not sure but they are predictions for science, or for the limits of the intrasubjective method.

 

The issue is complicated by the tendency of scientists to shun metaphysics while adopting metaphysical views, for instance Materialism, Dualism, Atheism etc. Most, for instance, reject Solipsism and Scepticism. Almost all reject nondualism. This is bit like saying physics is rubbish but relativity is true. We can't have it both ways. Either we respect the discipline or we are stuck with mere opinion. . .

 

Sorry, a bit of a woolly post.

[Moontanman]

My thoughts are a bit confused on this because it is debatable what would count as a prediction. It's something I'm still exploring.

 

Metaphysics predicts, one might say, that without metaphysics a fundamental theory of anything is impossible. It predicts that physics will never be able to answer questions about the size of the universe, its origin, the nature of time and space, consciousness, the origin of the laws of physics and many other things.

 

Whether these are scientific predictions I'm not sure but they are predictions for science, or for the limits of the intrasubjective method.

 

The issue is complicated by the tendency of scientists to shun metaphysics while adopting metaphysical views, for instance Materialism, Dualism, Atheism etc. Most, for instance, reject Solipsism and Scepticism. Almost all reject nondualism. This is bit like saying physics is rubbish but relativity is true. We can't have it both ways. Either we respect the discipline or we are stuck with mere opinion. . .

 

Sorry, a bit of a woolly post.

 

PeterJ, I am honestly trying to understand your point of view on this but you keep making assertions that do not make sense, I think you should show why these assertions are any different than the god of the gaps religion uses.

 

Metaphysics predicts, one might say, that without metaphysics a fundamental theory of anything is impossible. It predicts that physics will never be able to answer questions about the size of the universe, its origin, the nature of time and space, consciousness, the origin of the laws of physics and many other things.

These are assertions that simply do not make sense in the light of scientific progress. At one time much of the world was unknown and thought by "meta-physicists" to be unknowable, the source of lighting was thought to be god, the source of a rainbow was god, the god of the gaps has grown increasingly smaller and smaller and your take on this sounds suspiciously like the god of the gaps argument..

[PeterJ]

Is is exactly a 'god of gaps' argument, except that it is not an argument for God. if we do not do metaphysics then we end up with gaps all over the place. The gaps are the issues on which physics cannot address the fundamentals and metaphysics has to take over.

 

The list of assertions is not contentious. These are matters that lie beyond the scientific method. Metaphysics is defined as dealing with time and space, origins, absolutes, fundamentals etc. If you ask how big the universe is you are doing metaphysics. I'm not clear as to the detailsl of the 'background-dependence' problem, but if it is the question of whether spacetime is fundamental then it is is a metaphysical problem. Physics stops short of this level of profundity. One might say it stops short of reality. It is phenomenology, not ontology. .

 

This was not my decision, it was how we decided to divide up knowledge between physics and metaphysics. I take no notice of the divide and couldn't care less about it. But somewhere along the line a useful division of university building into faculties has become a barrier to seeing the bigger picture. I do care about this.

 

I believe that physicists should do metaphysics because their no-nonsense attiitude might massively improve the discipline. Also, I do not believe that mainstream western philsophy has yet comes to terms with Einstein, let alone what we've learnt since, and like to think that physicists would do a better job. It seems to me that best of the physicists among those who venture into metaphysics, people like Schrodinger, Bohm, Eddington, Heisenberg and so forth, do it much better than most professional philosophers.

[ydoaPs]

Moontanman, devise for me an experiment to show the one-way speed of light whose setup does not already assume the one-way speed of light.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman, devise for me an experiment to show the one-way speed of light whose setup does not already assume the one-way speed of light.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean, please elaborate.

 

Is is exactly a 'god of gaps' argument, except that it is not an argument for God. if we do not do metaphysics then we end up with gaps all over the place. The gaps are the issues on which physics cannot address the fundamentals and metaphysics has to take over.

 

The list of assertions is not contentious. These are matters that lie beyond the scientific method. Metaphysics is defined as dealing with time and space, origins, absolutes, fundamentals etc. If you ask how big the universe is you are doing metaphysics. I'm not clear as to the detailsl of the 'background-dependence' problem, but if it is the question of whether spacetime is fundamental then it is is a metaphysical problem. Physics stops short of this level of profundity. One might say it stops short of reality. It is phenomenology, not ontology. .

 

This was not my decision, it was how we decided to divide up knowledge between physics and metaphysics. I take no notice of the divide and couldn't care less about it. But somewhere along the line a useful division of university building into faculties has become a barrier to seeing the bigger picture. I do care about this.

 

I believe that physicists should do metaphysics because their no-nonsense attiitude might massively improve the discipline. Also, I do not believe that mainstream western philsophy has yet comes to terms with Einstein, let alone what we've learnt since, and like to think that physicists would do a better job. It seems to me that best of the physicists among those who venture into metaphysics, people like Schrodinger, Bohm, Eddington, Heisenberg and so forth, do it much better than most professional philosophers.

 

 

Are you making an unfounded assertion, much like the god botherers do, that these gaps are forever closed to science? How can you assert that?

[ydoaPs]

I'm not sure what you mean, please elaborate.

I mean that all of science is permeated with untestable metaphysical assumptions. The example I pointed out is one of the few in modern science that was actually acknowledged by the person putting forth the theory. Einstein noted the problem in his paper and ended up settling it with convention.

[Moontanman]

I mean that all of science is permeated with untestable metaphysical assumptions. The example I pointed out is one of the few in modern science that was actually acknowledged by the person putting forth the theory. Einstein noted the problem in his paper and ended up settling it with convention.

 

 

So you are saying the speed of light is untestable? Or that the assumption the speed of light is always c is untestable if you can't be two places at once or communicate faster than c?

[ydoaPs]

So you are saying the speed of light is untestable? Or that the assumption the speed of light is always c is untestable if you can't be two places at once or communicate faster than c?

You cannot in principle test what the one-way speed of light is, let alone that it is constant and/or invariant.

[Moontanman]

You cannot in principle test what the one-way speed of light is, let alone that it is constant and/or invariant.

 

 

Ok, but is it correct to assert this will always be the case? That seems to be what metaphysics is about, or at least my take on it. The idea that some things are unknowable and therefore can be asserted with no evidence other than those assertions is not logical.

 

In fact I would say it is nonsensical to assert anything there is no evidence for as truth or knowledge,

[ydoaPs]

Ok, but is it correct to assert this will always be the case?

Yes.

The idea that some things are unknowable and therefore can be asserted with no evidence other than those assertions is not logical.

There are objective measures of what is more likely to be true than alternatives when there is no evidence [yet] or there can never be [in principle] evidence. It's not just whatever you want. THAT is irrational.

 

But figuring out the intrinsic probability of various alternatives correctly is anything but irrational. It is, however, non-empirical.

[Moontanman]

At one time the idea of rocks falling from the sky was considered nonsensical, people who knew the world said there was no way rocks could fall from the sky and could make all sorts of arguments as why that had to be true none of which could be tested. That sounds like metaphysics to me, asserting something as fact with no evidence to back it up, yet rocks continued to fall from the sky...

Yes.There are objective measures of what is more likely to be true than alternatives when there is no evidence [yet] or there can never be [in principle] evidence. It's not just whatever you want. THAT is irrational.

But figuring out the intrinsic probability of various alternatives correctly is anything but irrational. It is, however, non-empirical.

 

Actually since it is at least hypothetically possible to travel faster than light I would have to say your assertion is not exactly rock solid...

But figuring out the intrinsic probability of various alternatives correctly is anything but irrational. It is, however, non-empirical.

 

 

I can honestly say i have never heard metaphysics described in this fashion, in fact since religion is metaphysics it still comes back to arguing things are true with no evidence to back them up. I have never read of probability being involved but as i have often said new knowledge is always welcome in my brain, still your argument does little to convince me that metaphysics has any positive influence in the real world. It still sounds like pure speculation, in fact I think I could make a pretty good case for UFOs being alien space craft and stay within the bounds of "metaphysics"....

[PeterJ]

Are you making an unfounded assertion, much like the god botherers do, that these gaps are forever closed to science? How can you assert that?

 

It is simply a fact. Ask any senior physicist. It is not unfounded but inevitable. It is the exact reason why metaphysics was invented, to isolate all those problem that in principle cannot be answered by the observational scientific method. This has nothing to do with acquiring more data or becoming more clever. The situation will be the same ten thousand years from now, just as is was ten thousand years ago. .

 

It is not something we need to argue about. It's just a matter of comparing the definitions for metaphysics and physics. Or just consider their methods. There is no method by which we could prove that Materialism is true even if it was. All we can do is demonstrate its absurdity in metaphysics.

 

After all, if the methods of the natural sciences could delve all the way down to fundamentals and leave no gaps, then metaphysics would be entirely redundant. There would have been no point in naming. it.

Edited June 11, 2013 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

It is simply a fact. Ask any senior physicist. It is not unfounded but inevitable. It is the exact reason why metaphysics was invented, to isolate all those problem that in principle cannot be answered by the observational scientific method. This has nothing to do with acquiring more data or becoming more clever. The situation will be the same ten thousand years from now, just as is was ten thousand years ago. .

 

No, this is demonstrably not true, a great many things that were once unanswerable but are now well known.

 

It is not something we need to argue about. It's just a matter of comparing the definitions for metaphysics and physics. Or just consider their methods. There is no method by which we could prove that Materialism is true even if it was. All we can do is demonstrate its absurdity in metaphysics.

 

This makes no sense to me, how can materialism not be the most probable explanation for reality? Ever hear of the shotgun test?

 

 

After all, if the methods of the natural sciences could delve all the way down to fundamentals and leave no gaps, then metaphysics would be entirely redundant. There would have been no point in naming. it.

 

Yet those gaps continually get smaller and smaller, this has sounded the death toll for fundamentalist religion, their only escape is to flee where the gaps are and slowly be squeezed into oblivion. The idea of some place outside of reality is in my estimation dishonest

and is the last hope of the dishonest to shore up their credibility..

[PeterJ]

Moontanman - You have an incorrect understanding of metaphysics. I think maybe you're beginning to realise this. .

 

Metaphysics is the study of first principles or 'world as a whole'.

 

It's principle method for decision-making is Aristotle's dialectic. The laws of logic are used to eliminate theories that give rise to contradictions in order to leave only those that do not. This is the method recommended by Sherlock Holmes for weeding out from a list of suspects those who could not have committed the crime. At its best this will be a completely rigorous process very similar to mathematics, and the two disciplines share many of the same problems. It may be called a 'science of logic'.

 

It does not endorse religion.in a blanket fashion. It renders a great many religious beliefs absurd and endorses others. Either way, its methods are disinterested. One needs a very cold heart and a mathematician's rigour to do metaphysics. You will not see many people who hold dogmatic but unsupported views doing much of it. We do not see the original subject of this thread going near it, and many religiously-minded people fear it more than physics.

 

It's all about refuting theories, and that may include many of our own.

 

Perhaps your hatred of religion is getting the better of your honesty as a researcher. It doesn not take much research to establish that the gaps you speak of will never go away unless we use metaphysics.to close them.

Edited June 11, 2013 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

Moontanman - You have an incorrect understanding of metaphysics. I think maybe you're beginning to realise this.

 

Metaphysics is the study of first principles or 'world as a whole'.

 

It's principle method for decision-making is Aristotle's dialectic. The laws of logic are used to eliminate theories that give rise to contradictions in order to leave only those that do not. This is the method recommended by Sherlock Holmes for weeding out from a list of suspects those who could not have committed the crime. At its best this will be a completely rigorous process very similar to mathematics, and the two disciplines share many of the same problems. It may be called a 'science of logic'.

 

It does not endorse religion.in a blanket fashion. It renders a great many religious beliefs absurd and endorses others. Either way, its methods are disinterested. One needs a very cold heart and a mathematician's rigour to do metaphysics. You will not see many people who hold dogmatic but unsupported views doing much of it. We do not see the original subject of this thread going near it, and many religiously-minded people fear it more than physics.

 

It's all about refuting theories, and that may inlcude many of our own.

 

 

You realize this idea of "metaphysics" is as wide open for misuse as religion?

 

Can you give me an example of a theory you have refuted?

[PeterJ]

Moontanman - I've tried to help but the task is beyond me. Just a read a book for goodness sake.

[Moontanman]

Your propensity for ignore questions or points made by others by obfuscation is disturbing, you keep making claims but never give examples nor do you give answers, this sets off my bullshit meter immediately, that of course doesn't make what you say bullshit but it very closely resembles horsefeathers for sure...

Moontanman - I've tried to help but the task is beyond me. Just a read a book for goodness sake.

 

Well, at least you are honest about that... but the implied insult is disturbing... is that your normal methodology?