Introduction to philosophy

Post Reply New Topic

Aristotelean metaphysics, Platonic metaphysics and Kantian metaphysics have impeded the science of physics (for different reasons each). For that reason metaphysics is to be avoided in the field of physics, the only real science.

Metaphysics will get a real physicist nowhere.

Of the Big Three above, Kant was close to the mark. All a physicist really has are the observed phenomena. With out best instruments which cost a gazillion dollars we are 15 orders of magnitude short of Planck Length. As a result we cannot observe reality at the Rock Bottom (assuming there is a Rock Bottom). The best we can do is hypothesize causes and make testable observations to see if the hypothetical causes are correct or not. Of all the philosophers Popper is closest to the mark, and Popper is the one philosopher most respected by real scientists.

Of the British Empiricists Hume was the closest to the mark. Of the American philosophers C.S. Peirce was closest to the mark.

None of these folks were metaphysicians. They were epistemologists.

ruveyn

A lack of a proper metaphysical frame for physics is likely a bigger issue for those people. After all, in the modern day, metaphysics is a separate study from physics.


Not really, metaphysics will help a real physicist dealing with cosmology or some other abstract topic understand the logical consequences of their ideas. A major issue is that the studies have now become very different studies, as physics carries it's own metaphysical ideas, and works within a special frame for it.


Umm..... I don't even know what metrics you are using or why they are valid.

Not only that, but metaphysics does seem more likely to suffer from issues of later becoming invalid, and that is mostly because it is founded upon the physical notions of the time, which are changing, but that does not invalidate it.

Not only that, but in any case, Hume actually did get involved in metaphysics in his argument against the ontological proof of God, and arguably in his claims about how free will actually prevents ethical punishment. In any case, these were the days where specialization was not as big. In any case, I still don't see much of a case, as you have not proven anything, all I get from this is "ruveyn likes epistemology", but honestly that does not say that metaphysics should not be studied, particularly given that there can be overlaps between the fields.

Ruveyn prefers epistemology to metaphysics because epistemology may be useful to physicists doing physics (the only real science) and metaphysics has been an impediment to real science. Ruveyn is a pragmatist and a barbarian. I go with what works and what produces useful results. Everything else is ka ka.

ruveyn

Ok? But the issue is that epistemology also MAY NOT be useful to physicists as well, as not all epistemologies are as science-oriented. As well, the metaphysical issues you put forward were more impediments before physics actually developed as an independent framework, so I can't say that your criticisms of metaphysics are exactly fair given that modern physics has to be recognized as the end result of philosophical inquiry rather than something always known but repressed by the evils of metaphysicists.

In any case, logic is a separate field from epistemology, but it is also useful for physicists.

Not only that, but even within the standpoint of pragmatism, odd variants such as Richard Rorty's neo-pragmatism exist and are relativist compared to your own stances.

research in epistemology has not impeded physics. The same cannot be said of metaphysics. Aristotle's physics and metaphysics held up science for over a thousand years.

ruveyn

ruveyn, your attack on Aristotle seems unfair given that Aristotle was only putting forward a theory in a world that did not know better, as seen by the multitudes of strange Greek theories. It is not as if modern physics had absolutely no social context.

Not only that, but the reason why epistemology has not impeded physics is because the weird ideas in epistemology are not ones accepted by the founders of modern physics. If Hume's criticism of induction were accepted, then that would impede physics until the problem was resolved. If Berkeley's subjective idealism were accepted then physics would be impeded.

Finally, Aristotle's efforts would have likely reflected an epistemological view, as he is making claims to knowledge. So, therefore, if Aristotle has problems, either he is not using his accepted epistemology well, or he has a flawed epistemology. If the latter, then shouldn't epistemology be guilty for the problems he put forward for physics? If the former, then why wasn't he shown to have completely contradicted himself earlier?

In any case, I would mostly rest upon the first argument, as it isn't that fair to blame an entire subject because a practitioner had accidental negative impact. Particularly if the proper methods weren't well established in the time that the bad information was generated.

In terms of Greek science, it's too bad that the Heliocentrism of Aristarchus of Samos was forgotten.

It would have saved 2000 years of nonsense. It is too bad that the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle superordinaed the philosophy of the Ionians. Two thousand years down the drain. If the Ionians had come out ahead we would be flying around in Star Ships and not jet planes and we would by typing to each other in Greek.

ruveyn

Well, you'd still need someone equivalent to Newton to derive the basic laws of physics, though for chemistry Democritus was on the right track they still would have needed to convert alchemy into chemistry as Boyle did.

Hard to say, there's a massive counter-factual involved. In any case, if men were gods, then the world would be better, but I see no reason to blame human fallibility or the fallibility of human attempts, including those in metaphysics.

Without the nonsense of Aristotle in the way, that could have happened much sooner. Of course this is highly speculative. Progress in science is not mechanically predictable. Who knows what wars, plagues and other disasters might have intervened?

ruveyn

Maybe just another boneheaded idea would emerge. After all, Aristotle wasn't the only person to have bad ideas.

At the least, progress would have been hindered by the termination of the Roman Empire still and general political chaos ensuing. Unless having a better cosmological model were to technologically assist the Romans in conquering the rest of the planet in some way. I know the Romans are not the Greeks, but they immersed themselves with the learning of the Greeks after they conquered them.