it's never been to clear to me how much science should play a role, say, in metaphysics — Manuel

It's the other way around - metaphysics plays a role in science. It sets the ground rules. The scientific method is metaphysics. The Principle of Relativity we've been talking about is metaphysics.

Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. — Wayfarer

The relationship between science and mathematics is one that perplexes me. This is an interesting quote. It has set me thinking.

Well yes, that's true actually. What I should have said is that I don't think that science is the whole of metaphysics. I'm using science extremely narrowly here meaning physics basically.

But I think the whole of science includes much more than physics. One such domain where we know very little is in psychology which includes our conception of the world, our perceptions too. These latter aspects can be called "philosophical", without too much controversy I'd think, although parts of perception and common-sense conceptions can be studied empirically.

Then there's the topic of monism, pluralism, dualism, idealism, physicalism and so on. At this point we just call these topics "metaphysical" ones, because I don't think these can be settled by empirical demonstrations.

The relationship between science and mathematics is one that perplexes me. This is an interesting quote. It has set me thinking. — T Clark

If you find that quote interesting, you might want to take a look at his An Outline of Philosophy, where he says this and plenty more. I thought it was quite good and pleasant to read.

Well yes, that's true actually. What I should have said is that I don't think that science is the whole of metaphysics. I'm using science extremely narrowly here meaning physics basically. — Manuel

I've spent a lot of time thinking and writing about the differences between science and metaphysics. I think it's an important distinction that is sometimes hard to keep straight. I sometimes have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to these types of discussions. I think I jumped on you a bit.

I think what I wrote is important, but it does go both ways. I strongly resist the idea that quantum mechanics has any metaphysical implications. It's physics. That's hard for me to maintain sometimes, given how much it has changed the way people think about the world. It's probably true that keeping the distinctions clear and definite has become something of an ideology for me. I probably need to work on that.

In my understanding, scientific statements have truth values, they are either true or false, while metaphysical statements do not. I get a lot of my thinking on this subject from Collingwood's "Essay on Metaphysics." If we let the distinction between physics and metaphysics become too porous, we get the unending arguments about the nature of reality we have here.

But I think the whole of science includes much more than physics. One such domain where we know very little is in psychology which includes our conception of the world, our perceptions too. These latter aspects can be called "philosophical", without too much controversy I'd think, although parts of perception and common-sense conceptions can be studied empirically. — Manuel

I agree. I find this frustrating in discussions of consciousness. That's another place where the distinction between science and philosophy can get lost. On the forum we see a lot of seems-to-me theories about consciousness that don't take the results of lots of fairly recent work into consideration.

Then there's the topic of monism, pluralism, dualism, idealism, physicalism and so on. At this point we just call these topics "metaphysical" ones, because I don't think these can be settled by empirical demonstrations. — Manuel

I don't think they can be settled at all in any global sense. My party line on metaphysical conceptions is that they are not true or false, they are more or less useful in different situations.

you might want to take a look at his An Outline of Philosophy — Manuel

I haven't had much luck with Russell in the past. I'll take another look.

I think what I wrote is important, but it does go both ways. I strongly resist the idea that quantum mechanics has any metaphysical implications. It's physics. That's hard for me to maintain sometimes, given how much it has changed the way people think about the world. It's probably true that keeping the distinctions clear and definite has become something of an ideology for me. I probably need to work on that. — T Clark

It's not clear to me either. I've worked on this topic and have spoken with esteemed figures too, due to the work I was doing. I think "metaphysics" depends on were you are coming from. I suspect Sellar's distinction between the "manifest image" (ordinary everyday life) and the "scientific image" is crucial here.

For Strawson "metaphysics" is about the nature of the world, but part of it is a-priori. But as he says, some a-priori facts are facts about reality, just as much as empirical demonstrations are matters of fact. But not everything in metaphysics can be settled, far from it.

For Chomsky, "metaphysics" should be re-interpreted in the manner of Ralph Cudworth namely how the world interacts with our cognitive faculties.

So you are far from alone here. The way you use it is legitimate too. At least Schopenhauer and maybe even Kant would agree with you, which is not bad company necessarily.

On the forum we see a lot of seems-to-me theories about consciousness that don't take the results of lots of fairly recent work into consideration. — T Clark

Sure. The only issue is that some of the scientific work here, say, Hoffman's work on vision and how the eye works, leaves entirely open all options. But I agree that looking at empirical experiments can be useful.

For Strawson "metaphysics" is about the nature of the world, but part of it is a-priori. But as he says, some a-priori facts are facts about reality, just as much as empirical demonstrations are matters of fact. But not everything in metaphysics can be settled, far from it. — Manuel

As I said, in my understanding metaphysical statements cannot be true or false. They are useful or not useful in a particular situation. Here are a list of issues I think are metaphysical:

• As you noted - monism, pluralism, dualism, idealism, physicalism and so on
• Free will vs. determinism
• The existence of objective reality
• The mind/body problem

It is not my intention to go into these subjects any deeper here. I think they are off-topic a bit.

For the record, I've been partially vaccinated, and I fully accept that the vaccine is safe and effective. — Wayfarer

Based on a case study of one? With possibly no tests for further covid infection? That's bad science.

And when you look a the numbers, it turns out that vaccines afe safe. — Banno

Not for those who had serious side effects or who died from it.

It's the other way around - metaphysics plays a role in science. It sets the ground rules. The scientific method is metaphysics. The Principle of Relativity we've been talking about is metaphysics. — T Clark

I don't agree with this. Science is pragmatics, not metaphysics. It's like phenomenology; if you want to understand how things are and how they work, then you have to "go back to the things themselves", as Husserl says. Bracket our biases and simply look and try to understand things in the way they are given to us.

In my understanding, scientific statements have truth values, they are either true or false, while metaphysical statements do not. — T Clark

This makes no sense to me. If a statement is propositional and coherent, then it should be truth-apt. Can you give an example of a coherent metaphysical statement that is not truth-apt?

Based on a case study of one? — baker

Apparently, persons apart from myself have received vaccines, and by all reports, it's been effective and safe.

If it predicts it ain't metaphysics

A young woman should understand that if she takes the AZ vaccine, she may die as a direct result.

People occasionally end up in the hospital struggling with side effects of the Pfizer vaccine.

It's important for people to know the risks.

The risk of short-term side-effects and death appears to be minimal at this stage, orders of magnitude less than the risk of short term complications and death that you face if you have contracted Covid. Long-term risks of either are pretty much unknown.

Baker would have us not vaccinate because of a relatively small risk.

Do the numbers. Overwhelmingly you are better off being vaccinated. Even more so when we are all vaccinated.

It's up to the individual of course. If your risk of contracting Covid is minimal, then the risks of the vaccines may loom larger and, for me at least, it seems unnecessary to take it at this stage.

It's important for people to know the risks. — frank

The risks from being vaccinated are demonstrably far smaller than the risks associated with getting the disease.

I put anti-vax on the same footing as young-earth creationism and climate change denial. In that sense, I'm not the least 'anti-science'.

It's up to the individual of course. — Janus

The unfortunate part about invisible enemies is, we can't prove accessory before or after the fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a mere preponderance of the evidence. So you are right: it's up to the individual. If only we could prove it was him that caught it and passed it on to kill another, then we could make him pay. But we can't. And selfish, inconsiderate people know this, and they feel even more vindicated when there are so many of them. Oh well. That's why the U.S. and other "free" countries have the highest death toll. That's why variants proliferate. That's why variants may render vaccines worthless.

Sure. But 5 in 200,000 is a very small personal risk. I've had my shot, and I think you have made a poor choice. I wonder how you took into account the risk, should everyone follow your example.

The risks from being vaccinated are demonstrably far smaller than the risks associated with getting the disease.

I put anti-vax on the same footing as young-earth creationism and climate change denial. In that sense, I'm not the least 'anti-science'. — Wayfarer

For a young woman, the risk of death by COVID19 is a tiny bit bigger than the risk of death by vaccine.

It's just super basic medical ethics. Tell patients what their risks are. The notion that there is no risk associated with the AZ vaccine is simply wrong.

Sure. But 5 in 200,000 is a very small personal risk. I've had my shot, and I think you have made a poor choice. I wonder how you took into account the risk, should everyone follow your example. — Banno

For a start you live in a city and I don't. And then everyone will not follow my example, which means that objection is irrelevant.

For a young woman, the risk of death by COVID19 is a tiny bit bigger than the risk of death by vaccine. — frank

Bollocks. Hogwash. Utter nonsense. You have no facts to back that up. I'm not even going to bother arguing it.

But 5 in 200,000 is a very small personal risk. — Banno

5 in 200,000 is not a personal risk. It's the community's risk and it isn't small. It's only acceptable in the face of a pandemic.

I was vaccinated last December without knowing what the risks might be. I'm a frontline healthcare worker.

Bollocks. Hogwash. Utter nonsense. You have no facts to back that up. I'm not even going to bother arguing it. — Wayfarer

You're wrong. Look it up.

It's up to the individual of course. — Janus

It is, but the consequences of that decision go beyond the individual.

The consequences of all decisions go beyond the individual,and yet we all make decisions which could have dire negative consequences in the future. Do you own a car for example? If ninety nine percent of humanity died in a pandemic, the long-term result for the earth, for humanity and all its other forms of life could indeed be much better than what might result from humanity beating the virus and continuing with business as usual.So, who decides what matters more?

In any case the consequences that are likely to result from me personally not accepting the vaccine are negligible.

:100:

This topic seems to excite some interest, so I will start another thread to deal with it, as it is really off-topic here.

Science is pragmatics, not metaphysics — Janus

As I indicated, the scientific method is metaphysics. It establishes the rules by which science is performed. Science is the systematic study of the world following procedures consistent with the scientific method.

Can you give an example of a coherent metaphysical statement that is not truth-apt? — Janus

Einstein's principle of relativity from his first paper on Special Relativity is a good example:

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)

So, who decides what matters more? — Janus

Society. Otherwise, I could kill you with impunity.

But I do like your optimistic view of the upside. 99% reduction would be a good thing, I reckon.

What I would find interesting is a test on the individuals who don't want to vax: We start offering them money, or chances for money, and see how long they stuck to their guns. LOL! We're all cold, calculating students of science and the numbers and the odds, Covid vs vaccine, hmmm? We decide to not vax because, well, we ran the numbers. And we're smart like that. But wait, $1k? $10k? $100k? A million? Give me some of that action!

In other words, fuck my fellow man, it's all about me and has nothing to do with the risks of a vaccine.

As I indicated, the scientific method is metaphysics. It establishes the rules by which science is performed. Science is the systematic study of the world following procedures consistent with the scientific method. — T Clark

This is just a repeated assertion of your position without any accompanying argument for that position.

Are you claiming that the assertions in the quoted example are neither true nor false?

I generally agree with what you say. But the issue of right of refusal vaccination has not been put to the vote. so it is as yet unknown whether the majority of any society would mandate vaccination.

Also, you seem to be alluding to the well-attested fact that people are constitutionally incapable of viscerally caring about more than some fairly small number of people; namely those who matter personally to them.

so it is as yet unknown whether the majority of any society would mandate vaccination. — Janus

You asked "should" not "does". So yeah, I agree.

Also, you seem to be alluding to the well-attested fact that people are constitutionally incapable of viscerally caring about more than some fairly small number of people; namely those who matter personally to them. — Janus

I try not to allude, but maybe I did. I think we agree on the well-attested fact. I use myself as a case in point on your other thread.

P.S. When I choose to refrain from investing the time and resources into making myself an expert on a given area, I tend to default to those who have. I've done the calculation of odds vs inconvenience and decided that is a risk worth taking. So, scientce says vax, I vax. Case by case, mind you.