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

[Moontanman]

what do you definitively imply by testable predictions?

 

 

A prediction that can be tested and shown to be empirically valid, example, I can drop weights from a specific height and predict how long they will fall, how fast they will be going when they hit ect. This can be repeated by other people with the same results...

 

Can metaphysics make such a testable prediction?

Edited June 15, 2013 by Moontanman

[univeral theory]

A prediction that can be tested and shown to be empirically valid, example, I can drop weights from a specific height and predict how long they will fall, how fast they will be going when they hit ect. This can be repeated by other people with the same results...

 

Can metaphysics make such a testable prediction?

what if(as examples) we say that;Pressure "IS" the ratio of force to the area over which that force is distributed. or a force "IS" any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction. can such prediction be tested and shown to be empirically valid?

[Moontanman]

what if(as examples) we say that;Pressure "IS" the ratio of force to the area over which that force is distributed. or a force "IS" any influence that causes an object to undergo a certain change, either concerning its movement, direction, or geometrical construction. can such prediction be tested and shown to be empirically valid?

 

Yes, I don't understand why you would suggest pressure, in the context of science, is not empirically valid...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure

Edited June 17, 2013 by Moontanman

[univeral theory]

Yes, I don't understand why you would suggest pressure, in the context of science, is not empirically valid...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure

i didn't suggest pressure alone! though we can proceed with you comments on pressure if that is where we can reach an agreement.

if the way i understand empirically valid as "based solely on observation" is true, then in the context of science; it is physically flawed to assume that our true physical sense can only be tested through observations alone. generically, there are other like; detection,smells, sounds and so on.

[Moontanman]

i didn't suggest pressure alone! though we can proceed with you comments on pressure if that is where we can reach an agreement.

if the way i understand empirically valid as "based solely on observation" is true, then in the context of science; it is physically flawed to assume that our true physical sense can only be tested through observations alone. generically, there are other like; detection,smells, sounds and so on.

 

 

Yes and we have machines that can sense those things as well, are you alluding to the brain in a box meme? I asked for testable predictions, we can make testable predictions for all those things. Please elaborate on what you are asserting...

[Moontanman]

spammer

[univeral theory]

Yes and we have machines that can sense those things as well,

"SENSE"; so sounding with in the testability discussion of scientific predictions (meaning that the tests of scientific predictions do not rely solely on observational mechanisms alone).

 

as for metaphysical predictions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics;

 

any scientific identification or categorizing prediction is metaphysical and scientifically falsifiable (start from those examples i raised in post #52 ).

how ever; any scientifically processing prediction "can" be physics.

[Moontanman]

"SENSE"; so sounding with in the testability discussion of scientific predictions (meaning that the tests of scientific predictions do not rely solely on observational mechanisms alone).

 

as for metaphysical predictions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics;

 

any scientific identification or categorizing prediction is metaphysical and scientifically falsifiable (start from those examples i raised in post #52 ).

how ever; any scientifically processing prediction "can" be physics.

 

 

You link goes nowhere, and your definition of the word sense is taken out of context from the manner i used it.

[iNow]

He can only make his argument if he conflates words.

 

Also... Still waiting on a single testable prediction. We're now like 60 posts in, too... It's not looking good.

[MonDie]

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'.

 

[...]

 

 

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

 

Were you saying this about his description of metaphysics, or were you making a more general statement?

 

The process of elimination described can be performed with only the assumption that definitions are true. Take this example:

 

Scenario One: The suspect killed Mary at 3:00pm, was driving toward the conference from 3:10pm to 4:00pm, and arrived at the conference at 3:30pm.

This statement doesn't need to make a prediction to be falsified. Normally, being falsified means that the statement is inconsistent with another statement that was independently shown to be true. In this case, Scenario One is falsified because it is inconsistent with itself. Not only is this good reasoning, it is reasoning that the validity of science depends on. Making accurate predictions tends to impress people, but science isn't a magic trick, science is logically justifiable in the same way that I'm logically justified in ruling out Scenario One.

[univeral theory]

You link goes nowhere, and your definition of the word sense is taken out of context from the manner i used it.

iam sorry if i miss understood the context from which you used the word sense.

 

however; i was saying that scientific predictions are not testable through observation processes alone. where you replied me by what i assumed to be an emphasis on it when you said that we also have machines that sense.any any way in what context did you use the word sense? as for the link; iam also sorry but here it is

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=metaphysics&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMetaphysics&ei=PkzFUZu9L7GO7QbetIHwBA&usg=AFQjCNFUbpVFtgwOJqp6znYl-5QINxsGOw&bvm=bv.48293060,d.ZWU

 

Also... Still waiting on a single testable prediction. We're now like 60 posts in, too... It's not looking good.

as for examples i gave one for the difiniton of force and pressure as a start. if iam wrong please explain

[Greylorn]

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 variety of metaphysical theories. This OP is meaningless unless it specifies the particular metaphysical theory its author dislikes.

 

BTW, Darwinism has yet to predict the characteristics of the next new species, or where it will appear. Of course, no one has found a genuinely new species. There is not even a decent theory for abiogenesis, much less a prediction about it. Big Bang theory has predicted an invariant background radiation intensity, rather than the observed WMAP spotty pattern.

 

It is easy to denigrate some undefined metaphysical theory, but whatever it is cannot be worse than our current beliefs about the beginnings.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

BTW, the stuff about the BB, evolution and abiogenesis are off topic. If you wish to discuss them, we have plenty of threads on the matter or, you could start your own. It would be appreciated if other members did not respond to that part of Greylorn's comment, also.

[iNow]

It is easy to denigrate some undefined metaphysical theory, but whatever it is cannot be worse than our current beliefs about the beginnings.

It's strange to me that you suggest metaphysical theories are being denigrated merely because posters have asked what testable predictions they might make. It's not denigrating to ask a question like that, and to suggest it is appears to be little more than a red herring.

 

While I agree that the inability to offer testable or falsifiable predictions implicitly denigrates the field of metaphysics, posters here discussing it have denigration as neither their intent nor their point. They've merely asked a question... a question that remains unaddressed despite more than 60 contributions to this thread.

 

With that said, let me point out that you have yet again evaded the core question of this thread, and responded tangential to the request that has been made.

 

You reference metaphysical theories. Can you cite a single one that makes a single testable prediction? Whether you feel this is a denigrating question or not, the question is still pending a single valid reply and I welcome any that you may be able to offer.

Edited June 25, 2013 by iNow

[MonDie]

While I agree that the inability to offer testable or falsifiable predictions implicitly denigrates the field of metaphysics

 

The prediction is that the theory will be self consistent. If it's not self consistent, it has been falsified.

The only thing unscientific about this is that it doesn't rely on empirical observation. However, if the formulation of predictions relies on empirical observation alone, then practically all science that has ever been conducted is actually pseudoscience. I explain this below.

 

In science, the two major tools are empiricism and logic. A statement consists of various claims, and those claims can be proven false directly through empirical observation, or indirectly through logic. As an example of empiricism, if my claim is that an object will be red, I can test that directly by looking at the object. As an example of logic, if neon is produced inside of the rod, I will see red neon light when I run an electric current through it.

In the latter, the logical connections are: neon emits red wavelength light; neon will emit light if I run an electric current through it; if there is neon in my rod, running an electric curent through the rod will run the electric current through the neon.

Logically, this tells us that the neon hypothesis predicts red light. However, if I were allowed to break the rules of logic, I could argue that the neon hypothesis predicts green light.

 

So science relies on the soundness of two methods, empirical observation and logic. If metaphysics solely relies on finding self contradictions in the theories, then metaphysics only relies on one of those methods, logic. The conlcusion is that the tools of metephysics comprise a subset of the tools of science, so you cannot denigrate metaphysical methods without denigrating scientific methods. In that case, the question should be: is the metaphysical method enough for one to arrive at any firm conclusions?

Edited June 25, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

So... in essence you're suggesting that the request be amended to say, "a testable and falsifiable prediction... about reality."

 

Okay, I'm good with that. I see it as a bit redundant, though, as one cannot validly make a testable and falsifiable prediction about something that is not real or subject to empiricism.

[MonDie]

So... in essence you're suggesting that the request be amended to say, "a testable and falsifiable prediction... about reality."

 

How would you define "reality"?

As I understand it, reality consists in that which exists. Initially, the only definition for "exist" I could come up with was "have the potential to impact our perceptions of reality" or, in other words, "potentially have perceptible consequences." However, our perceptions let us realize that there is activity going on in reality. The fact that there is activity that impacts us should lead us to ask whether there is activity that does not impact us. An activity can only impact us if it is, but an activity needn't impact us merely because it is, nor is impact on us a requirement for it to be. As an example, consider the possibility of multiple universes resulting from the statistical functions of quantum mechanics. Technically, the only activity relevant to us is the activity that resulted in our existence, but that doesn't necessitate that there is no other activity. We could define "exist" as "be part of some activity" in order to include unimpactful activity in our concept of reality.

Scratch that... scratch all of it. You could ask what the criteria is for determining whether or not an activity is. The only criterion I can think of is whether it has the ability to impact us. In fact, the whole argument boils down to circular reasoning since "to be" = "to exist". I implicitly redefined "to exist" in order to justify my explicit redefinition of the same.

 

I give up...

 

for now.

 

But it looks like I'm not the first person to ask. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

Edited June 26, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[univeral theory]

So... in essence you're suggesting that the request be amended to say, "a testable and falsifiable prediction... about reality."

 

Okay, I'm good with that. I see it as a bit redundant, though, as one cannot validly make a testable and falsifiable prediction about something that is not real or subject to empiricism.

 

 

in any case iNOw;

existence has a predictable sequence of testable events that MUST tally correctly with its categorical definitions or interpretational claims - and this is one of the main concerns of metaphysics. so as long as the predictions of the sequence of events is testable,their category predictions and definition predictions in form of interpretation claims must also be testable. for-example;predicting that the increase in the demand of cars will lead to a corresponding increase in the demand of fuel is as the same as saying that cars and fuel "ARE" complementary goods.these two scenarios have the same results that are predictable in different ways that is testable and falsifiable. one is definitional prediction and another is process prediction.

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2013 by univeral theory

[iNow]

So, your prediction is that existence results in outcomes? That doesn't seem specific enough to be of much use.

 

Using your example, I'm looking for something closer to "1,000 more cars sold in March will lead to 10,000 barrels of additional gasoline to be imported in April through June." Not, "cars use gas so more cars means more gas is used." Make sense?

[univeral theory]

So, your prediction is that existence results in outcomes? That doesn't seem specific enough to be of much use.

 

Using your example, I'm looking for something closer to "1,000 more cars sold in March will lead to 10,000 barrels of additional gasoline to be imported in April through June."

with out even restating the example you metioned, the difference is just in the time of responding to the execution of the complementary difinition of goods.

 

NOTE WELL ON THE FOLLOWING,

Existence = feasible being.

prediction = logical claims

testability = sensible (empirical) proof

Edited June 28, 2013 by univeral theory

[iNow]

Swell. Now, can you offer an actual answer to my actual question that is actually specific enough to have even a modicum of utility?

[MonDie]

Existence = feasible being.

 

Multiple possibilities are feasible until there is falsification, and some things are untestable yet still feasible.

 

By what criteria do you determine whether an hypothetical thing would hypothetically "exist" or "be"? Without such criteria, claims to existence cannot be true or false.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[univeral theory]

Swell. Now, can you offer an actual answer to my actual question that is actually specific enough to have even a modicum of utility?

 

the mind make sense(recognises) the feasible existence as the res-cogitan,

energy processes this sensing (recognition) as the res-extensa,

and the speed of consciousness regulates and coordinates how,when,what,where to make this recognition.

[iNow]

^ So, no again, then?

[Gees]

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.

 

Hi iNow;

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding your question, but I looked up metaphysics in Wiki and it looks like wisdom would be a predictable and testable example of metaphysics. Yes? No?

 

When I was young, my Mother used to often quote an old wisdom, "The liar never believes anyone; the theif locks his door; and the murder fears for his life." She explained that the reason is that we believe that other people think like we do. I have found this to be true.

 

I believe that Psychology calls this "Projecting", and has proven that my Mother's interpretation and the old wisdom is correct.

 

G