One of the most prominent is the idea of multiple universes, also known as the ‘many-worlds hypothesis’ or ‘multiverse’ theory.
And also left unaddressed was my point about the impressive results which have been brought about through modern methods which ancient Platonic philosophy would have no hope of coming anywhere close to matching. — S
He said that if string theory (or rather M theory) turns out to be considered wrong, the time invested in it will still have been worthwhile. He said that wrong turns in science are often valuable stepping stones. — frank
Yes, we have logical possibility and real potential. You could say real potential is actual in the sense that it is, in at least some sense, active; it can activate, bring about, change, future actualities. But what is possible potentially is not yet actual; we don't want to lose that distinction. — Janus
Yes, we have logical possibility and real potential. You could say real potential is actual in the sense that it is, in at least some sense, active; it can activate, bring about, change, future actualities. But what is possible - potentiality - is not yet actual; we don't want to lose that distinction. — Janus
Whether one leans towards theories extending from use of empiricism and logic or one leans towards “gut feeling” and pure “faith”, there is an inherent need for humans to conceptually grasp the big picture and this is where metaphysics’ finds its true value. — Dave Davidson via Gnomon
Classifications and Types of Thinking
Convergent or Analytical Thinking: Bringing facts and data together from various sources and then
applying logic and knowledge to solve problems or to make informed decisions.
Divergent thinking: Breaking a topic apart to explore its various components and then generating new ideas and solutions.
Thinking: Analysis and evaluation of information, beliefs, or knowledge.
Creative Thinking: Generation of new ideas breaking from established thoughts, theories, rules, and procedures.
Also, when scientific analysis is available, that analysis is sitting on implicit and/or explicit metaphysics. That's what models are, that's what assumptions about laws and order in nature, and likely mathematics underlying various phenomena and so on are. Everyone is a metaphysicist.This, I think, is an error of binary thinking: no scientific analysis is possible, therefore no form of analysis is possible. — Pattern-chaser
Although formal analysis is not possible for some issues, serious consideration remains a possibility. We need not automatically retreat to <<<“gut feeling” and pure “faith”>>>. Even where the tightly-focused requirements of scientific analysis are impractical, the broader approach of philosophy still has much to offer. — Pattern-chaser
when scientific analysis is available, that analysis is sitting on implicit and/or explicit metaphysics. — Coben
I would strengthen to say we can do more than speculate, less than determine which is best. IOW we can look at the fruitfulness of the metaphysics, or the fruitfulness of the research based on it. If we notice that there seem to be dead ends, a slowing down of productivity, we could try to tweak or replace some of those assumptions. We could also recognize that we need not per se dismiss something that uses a different metaphysics.We can even speculate on which are most useful to achieve certain goals. — Isaac
But what we cannot do is actually determine which are true, right, best, or any other measure. — Isaac
I have seen no impressive modern metaphysics, when compared to the ancients. Can you provide an example? We are talking about metaphysics, are we not? — Metaphysician Undercover
So what would you say the difference was between "gut feeling and faith" and the subject matter of what you're calling "serious" analysis? If we're not analysing empirical facts, then we must be analysing feelings and beliefs, surely? I can't see a third category of stuff that is neither empirical fact, nor the product of our minds (feelings and beliefs). — Isaac
Let's say there is though, we'd then be stuck on this idea of "seriously" analysing it. As opposed to what other form of analysis? — Isaac
But...most problematic of all, you use the term 'we'. That 'we' can do this analysis suggests a collaborative exercise, and yet if we're not working with empirical data (that which we agree is the case) then how can we even begin to construct an analytical language with which to have this discussion? — Isaac
Of course the usefulness of an assumtion or model can have a lot to do with factors that have nothing at all to do with truth or accuracy or even inherent usefulness. But I think some conscious work with that area could be helpful in general, and I mean even in science. — Coben
whatever the actual nature of reality, I have access to only one, the one my senses and perception shows me, so I might as well live with that, and deal with it as best I can.
This latter is not the result of a rigid analytic process, but my observation is not based on feelings and beliefs, but on structured, critical, thinking. — Pattern-chaser
As opposed to a formal, logical, scientific analysis, which is impossible in these cases. — Pattern-chaser
Common sense, coupled with structured, critical, thinking. Isn't this what philosophy is? — Pattern-chaser
Actually it has too matter if it is useful. A fact that has no predictive value is meaningless. At a bare minimum the idea that the earth is not flat will explain prior and future experiences. It will fit observations. It will be by itself or with other facts, lead to better practical decisions: flight paths, say. I suppose if one is an epistemological hedonist, then having a fact one thinks is true would be useful, since it would lead to pleasure. But otherwise truths are only true (for us) in that they connect up with uses. What they do, not what they are. Unless one is a Platonist, I suppose.No, no, no. Look, let's start off simple, shall we? The statement, "Planet Earth is not flat", is true, yes? It's true because Earth is not flat. That's a fact. Is it useful? Doesn't matter. The objective measure, the truth-maker, is the fact, the shape of Earth, not how useful it is. If it was useful for Earth to be flat, or triangular, or hexagonal, that wouldn't make it so. It would not then be true. — S
Actually it has to matter if it is useful. A fact that has no predictive value is meaningless.
[...] — Coben
If that's based on critical thinking, then what is it critical of.... — Isaac
Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. — Wikipedia
What is the alternative metaphysical assumption that you have used your critical analysis to reject and on what grounds? — Isaac
I wondered if there was a non-serious version of this non-scientific analysis you're describing, and if so, what would distinguish it as such. — Isaac
Common sense, coupled with structured, critical, thinking. Isn't this what philosophy is? — Pattern-chaser
No, not in my meta-philosophical position. — Isaac
Then what, pray tell, is philosophy? — Pattern-chaser
I'm talking about a critical method of examining the world, irrespective of whether or not you would class it as metaphysics, and I'm contrasting it with Platonic metaphysics, and I was questioning the worth that Wayfarer spoke of in regard to Platonic metaphysics in light of this. That's when you decided to chip in. In political terminology, I would say that Wayfarer is a reactionary: decrying modernity and showing favouritism towards an ancient metaphysics. — S
No, no, no. Look, let's start off simple, shall we? The statement, "Planet Earth is not flat", is true, yes? It's true because Earth is not flat. That's a fact. Is it useful? Doesn't matter. The objective measure, the truth-maker, is the fact, the shape of Earth, not how useful it is. If it was useful for Earth to be flat, or triangular, or hexagonal, that wouldn't make it so. It would not then be true. — S
OK, but metaphysics is a necessary support for any epistemology, and even the claim that it is not necessary is itself metaphysics. So any "critical method of examining the world" must be supported by metaphysics. If Platonic metaphysics provides a better support than modern metaphysics then Wayfarer is correct to value Platonic metaphysics in that way. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's not about how useful the resultant fact would be if it corresponded with reality. It's about how useful the theory about reality actually is. The theory that the earth is flat would not be useful for navigation because distances would not take account of the curvature of the earth. In my view, neither the earth, nor flat, nor sphere, nor shape are real, they're all distinctions we draw because of their utility. I could claim the earth was flat in non-eucildean space. It might even turn out to be coherent to talk about flat objects within curved space if someday we have a different understanding of space-time.
I really do understand your concern about wishy-washy ideas making into common parlance on relativist grounds, but I don't see it being a problem if we're strict about our evidence requirements for utility. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.