>"refutes metaphysics"
>actually does not understand metaphysics at all
why do so-called scientists disregard everything but empiricism? is there a primer for metaphysics so that people who want to learn don't get discouraged by midwits like Degrasse-Tyson &co?
That “blackhole” image is fraudulent.
also: are those "very short introduction" books any good? they are oxford press but seem like the kind of quickly outdated series that is run to pay the bills instead of putting out quality material.
I mean, what's the point? The entire premise of metaphysics is something that cannot be observed or tested, so why not let people do what we currently can do.
Fuck off
just use your common sense dude
I found them, at least two of the three I read, very good.
Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction was one of the ones I read and it was generally accessible and informative.
>why do so-called scientists disregard everything but empiricism?
Modernism solved a lot of questions, giving a guideline in form of the scientific method and people extrapolated how it relates to "truth". For better or worse, modernist notion of truth had become mainstream.
"You cannot know nothing" is very real but science is a practice that enables two researchers to come up with the same conclusion - different than philosophy (I use the term as divorced from science, although they of course have a common source) which usually comes in the form of people making up words to express their novel ideas that nobody would have made up with in the same way. When you "do science", there's a clearcut answe e.g. 21% of the air around it is oxygen, or something concreter like that that independent people can find independently. Nobody else would have thought the exact same thought and introduced the exact same notions as Hegel or Kierkegaard or whatever.
Metaphysical analysis isn't of the same sort than experimentation and common logic. Common people have other things to do and so they grew up with this realist notion of "truth" and don't question it.
"Which fraction of air is of the form of the oxygen molecule" is a scientific questions and has a clear cut numerical answer, whereas "How wrong was Plato about the rough notion of ideals" can't even be answered forever.
i very unironically and seriously believe we are getting close to forming a theory that could blend the two. the invisible web of human transactions described by Merleau-Ponty is the same as spooky quantum interactions at a distance is the same as the effects and memory of love drawing from the motion of God. the first two were unobservable once. i think if we upped our game we could hypothesize an empirical social solution for the third.
i mean... quantum recordings made in your past when you were with friends, or lovers, or your parents, or suffering a tragedy... all those are still with you and can be recalled immediately. spooky over time as well as space. quantum particles are doing this inside your brain right now. yes chemicals are the vehicles but they are not the drivers.
You're wrong (no offence) in that the "spooky action at distance" is a meme to make the subject more interesitng. The counter-intuitiveness of quantum mechanics doesn't equate it being spooky or mysterious. It is "strange" only in that sense that it's effects tend to not pop at at macroscopic (typically human observable) level, i.e. it's strage merely to common human learned intuition. To some super tiny beings that would experience quantum effects first hand, quantum mechanics would just be physics. And indeed that's what it is: Physics who's workings can be more or less well be described by humans. It's not spooky. If Bill Nye says quantum mechanics is mysterious, then it's to make it sound interesting (or because he's a pleb who never did it himself.)
spooky was Einstein's term, not mine.
thanks user
Pic is (you). Everyone knows that intuitive morality and the religious impulse are just relics of evolutionary psychology.
the two shortcuts to understanding metaphysics are
>read the history of philosophy
>read the history of science
especially alongside one another
>The only way to avoid becoming a metaphysician is to say nothing.
E.A. Burtt
>What the founders of modern science … had to do, was not criticize and to combat certain faulty theories, and to correct or to replace them by better ones. They had to do something quite different. They had to destroy one world and replace it by another. They had to reshape the framework of our intellect itself, to restate and to reform its concepts, to evolve a new approach to Being, a new concept of knowledge, and a new concept of science — and even to replace a pretty natural approach, that of common sense, by another which is not natural at all.
Alexandre Koyré
>why do people disregard metaphysics
Because there are so many of them and you can't demonstrate that one is more right/wrong than the other. Or if you can, please do.
>read the history of philosophy
>read the history of science
YOu are so dense you don't even realize what a retarded thing you jsut wrote in full sincerity.
May I ask permission to save this image, Sir?
Looks like Sauron's eye. Really gets the noodle in a kaboodle.
it's from /sci/
Thanks, Sir. I will ask there. Keep it for me.
>Popper killed the Dog
They brought it on themselves, though. Faith should never attempt to cross path with materialist scrutiny.
>"refutes metaphysics"
Hard sciences rely on metaphysics ... shockingly, to form a *hypothesis*. Only after it can be proven via Popper or formally (in pure math) it's upgraded to a *theory*. Most notorious example of formally sound metaphysics is string theory (a pure hypothesis). To a lesser degree quantum mechanics is metaphysical - theory only on high level, but fundamentally relying on statistical model nature of which is only hypothetical "randomness".
The assertion that external variables predetermine all outcomes of human consciousness and that it simply appears otherwise to our limited brains is literally false and possible to disprove via mathematics. Wittgenstein numbers and sentences proved that any formal system, e.g., a computer, calculus, a scientific theory, or our fucking brains, produces nonsense/irrational/demonstrably false conclusions that cannot be overcome without external information, theories, or epistemologies.
The implication for human consciousness and the mind body problem is that we are not simply computers working with innumerably large variables. We have a component that contains gaps, freedom, creativity, or at the very least wholly unpredictable randomness and supra rationality. This is true regardless of how advanced our knowledge of the world and computational powers are....
t. Wittgenstein
>formal math still needs external axioms which are simply defined by fiat
t. Godel
However Wittgenstein vs Turing is a good demonstration when arguing "natural philosophy" vs popper formalism, especially with modern thinking machines - those employ carrot & stick conditioning, the very same our own minds are subjected to. Turning "can a machine feel pain?" into a rather obtuse semantical argument.
>why do so-called scientists disregard everything but empiricism?
Because rationalism isn't as useful for their field. It's also why they've largely switched from teleological explanations to mechanistic ones.
You need rationalism to come up with hypotheses. You confirm them with empiricism.
lmao
High-level physics is not the same thing as "metaphysics." Describing the basic constitution of space is not the same thing as describing the thing that grounds the idea of space. Yes, hard sciences rely on metaphysics, but all theory and hypotheses are not in themselves metaphysical simply by virtue of being abstract.
Of course (((it))) is. You needn't but read how is being reported in the news. No, just by being in the (((news))) it's a fraud. >"I-It d-defies all our p-paradigms; but it totally proves (((einstein's general relativity))) guise"
Varies between them. Look up reviews beforehand
didnt i just see you on /his/..
It's not even an photograph, you ming-mongs. It's literally cgi.
CUTE