Bas C. van Fraassen - How Does Metaphysics Reveal Reality? 

🙂

couldn't have said better. very well said! it's silly trying to deny metaphysics. even denial of metaphysics is a metaphysical position.

how does science start with nothing at all? science presupposes tons of things. science presumes that logic works, that mathematics is true, that our senses are reliable, that our reasoning faculties are reliable, that the nature is intelligible, that we humans as being have the capabilities to understand the nature, that the natures follows some specific laws etc. how does science differ from metaphysics and not take some propositions as self evident, brute facts, and a priori without any argument to prove they are so?

Knowledge is justified belief. Is there any other justified belief greater than that you're human?

@@havenbastion Do you really need to believe that you are human?

@@williamburts5495 I need to believe whatever's true and effective toward saving the world from itself, which mainly just means truth.

@@havenbastion For the world to be saved we are going to have to perform sacrifice.

@@williamburts5495 When society requires existential change there is no choice but to harm the majority in proportion to how deeply they were benefiting from the status quo.

Deep meditation does not alllow someone to discover the fundamental nature of matter and science. Deep meditation just causes people to make empty truth claims.

"Metaphysics means nothing but an unusually obstinate effort to think clearly" (William James). Ha Ha that's not to say there aren't any terrible metaphysicans who just like to play around.

Why believe there's any ultimate truth?

@@TheMahayanist because Intellect, Reason, physics and evidence.

@@divertissementmonas that's a good one considering a main proponent of metaphysics is Reason and logic. I cannot understand why that foolish man would even think the term 'obstinate' is apt.

It's quite funny to think as you do, of metaphysics on one side, and empiricism & science on the other, once one cares to look at metaphysics in its original context. The bottom line about it is that it precisely started as a theoretical apparatus designed to extrapolate _empirical_ and protoscientific laws to their logical extents. The irony, of course, is that generations after generations, metaphysicists eventually lost touch with their ancient geometric, mathematical, and protoscientific roots, to the point where sometimes they may even think of their fields as a framework underpinning scientific research, instead of the other way around. Put simply, 'true' metaphysics is what modern cosmologists, quantum mechanical physicists, and even some mathematicians are doing, whereas both old school and modern metaphysics tend to be nothing more than storytelling.

Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge rigourously compiled, or the culture that accretes around both. Logic is a subset of science that deals with relationships that always replicate. Math is a subset of logic that deals exclusively with relationships of quantity. Quantity is recursive boundary conditions. In other words, to the extent you can divide something into equivalent (not equal) parts, you can do math on it.

"Quantum Mechanics proves that metaphysical objects can exist" No.

Quantum mechanics doesn't prove anything like that.

Do you want a coherent set of answers to everything in metaphysics?

Time is a concept derived from our thoughts about the relative movement of objects. Consider the movement of a train and the movement in a clock.

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Does this concept still hold true when the 'big bang' and all matter from this is accelerating from this expansion? everything, even the train and clock?

@@1p6t1gms Yes. What you are talking about is matter in motion.

Name one contradiction of logic.

“this statement is false”

@@AboutTime_in you cheated. This is not Logic, it's plain English. You can't translate it into a proper logical proposition.

@@ferdinandkraft857 hehe! Sure feels like cheating. You are in good company! Check out Russell’s paradox and the famous Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for more mathematical cheating!!

@@AboutTime_in not only feels like cheating; it is real cheating. Can you translate the Liar's Paradox to formal logic? I don't think you can (or anyone else). Russell's Paradox is a different beast, it's a proof that a particular type of set theory is inconsistent (it's not a contradiction of logic, it's a contradiction within a specific axiom set. Gödel's Theorems are not related to contradictions, but to incompleteness, which is a much "less severe" situation.

He has a much greater clue about what metaphysics are about than you do

The answer is; Academic credentials prove compliance, indicate knowledge, and say nothing of understanding.

You mean perhaps metaphysics was/is the intellectual nonsense that science overcame?

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL you're out of your right mind bud.

@@S3RAVA3LM "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" is a question in the kind of metaphysics that I have in mind. I'm not thinking at all about the kind of metaphysics that deals with the existential status of things like pattern and process.

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL and you entirely mistook my point because I was refering to the ancient Greek philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Parminides, ect.

Van Frassen has more idea than you do about what metaphysics is. And no, science was developed precisely on rejecting the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle.

Yes. I think advocates of physicalist reductionism fail to reflect on the process by which information about the world is obtained. Abstract mathematics, along with the act of measurement and the scientific process, are the two necessary activities for building a physical understanding of the world. Mathematics is entirely fabricated and exists independent of physics. One is able to create truth a priori by making up abstract entities, defining their properties, and reasoning about their behavior. The crucial point is that mathematical objects are essentially fabrications, but you can nonetheless create rigorous truth about fictional entities. Mathematics is truth about fiction. So one cannot even do physics without the capacity to reason about entirely imaginary objects. So maybe we should not be so quick to judge those who wish to reason about "fictional" objects, whether it be in philosophy, religion, or even storytelling and fiction. Cultivating a faculty of imagination and creativity is essential to the development of the mind.

Bas criticized metaphysics all of his career. He proposes a philosophy of science without metaphysical assumptions.

@@Xcalator35 everything that can be uttered or even thought is based on metaphysical assumptions

This comment doesn't make any sense.

@@afeather123 Van Frassen isn't a physicalist/reductionist.

Kuhn won't stop. He's the Don Quixote of Metaphysics.

The Above. Thank you Theo. I didn't want to go to the trouble of actually providing a valid definition of Metaphysics that Fraassen makes a mockery of with his strawman definition - which I've never heard of before in my life. And Kuhn is to ignorant to know the difference when asking about this time honored, and still very relevant branch of philosophy. It's sheer hubris and crass ignorance to assume science resolves or even can replace Metaphysics. Science is simply a subset of Metaphysics, within a very broad fundamental philosophical category. In addition, Science itself uses rationality to make its deductions and theories. So this whole - Science is above it all, above human reason, is sheer bosh.

@@jamenta2 Science is not a subset of metaphysics. Metaphysics is just playing with language. By assuming a conclusion is correct metaphysics is able to back into the logic. For metaphysics to be correct it has to include physics. This means quantum physics, general relativity and Newtonian physics must naturally fall out of metaphysics. Also metaphysics would have to be testable and verifiable.

@@jamenta2 Many thanks for this. I go along with much of it. I don't know if I would describe science as a 'subset' of metaphysics exactly but if you mean simply that it carries with it a set of metaphysical presuppositions, I think you are right. As to RLK, he is science trained himself and, indeed, like many scientists, he has some deep misunderstandings of philosophy, though what he calls his 'quest' is decent and intelligent enough. But I share your frustration all the same. He always leaves one with th impression that he stands in need of 'Philosophy 101'. (Theology 101' wouldn't go amiss, either, I have noticed.) For all that, though, he at least acknowledges that there is a quest beyond the narrower borders of science to be had and really desires some answers. However, you are right, he also stands in need of some good questions to start off with. Metaphysics in particular always causes problems with those in science and its camp followers. They seem to think, correctly, that both metaphysics and physics are about something called 'ultimate reality' and therefore (simply but invalidly) jump to the conclusion that they must, at bottom, be attempting to do the same job. One mistake usually leads to another and a downward spiral of ever increasing misunderstanding inevitably ensues. They then note that science seems to have the better method and therefore think, in full but entirely deluded assurance, that metaphysics should be ignored, or at best confined to the pages of the now discredited intellectual history of mankind. The attitude becomes one of, being now in possession of the Mark 2 model, why bother with the less reliable Mark 1? At which point, I have momentarily to give up thinking metaphysics myself and take up banging my head against a brick wall in order to find relief from the pain. That whole way of thinking, of course, simply ignores the fact that the two disciplines ask some very different questions about ultimate reality, even when superficially they seem to be the same or when general topic area is shared - such as the good old perennial 'What is time?". Metaphysics has been well summarised as being about 'being _qua_ being'. It's questions are ontological. Physics, in complete contrast, is more about the mechanical details of being. It deals, hence, more with empirically testable mathematical models. I am aware of course that many will need the notion of 'being _qua_ being' unpacked to some considerable degree, but this is already quite long enough. Fortunately I have noticed that the very first entry on the Google search page seems to summarise it quite nicely.

@@kos-mos1127 Metaphysics simply is the philosophical inquiry into the fundamentals of reality. It is an enormous category in philosophy in which almost everything under the sun (including quantum physics, general relativity) would naturally be a category within. You do not know what you're talking about.

@@jamenta2 Metaphysics does not include everything. Metaphysics a branch of philosophy that attempt to deals with firsts principles and the fundamental nature of reality. Metaphysics concerns itself with questions that they can never answer. Like dark shoreless oceans where all journeys end in ship wrecks. You do not know what your are talking about.

You described bad metaphysics, not metaphysics.

It could in theory, but doesn't because there's no good way to answer the question.

@@cosminvisan520 The concept of "meaning" is a human conceit. Do protons, neutrons, and electrons wonder about what they "mean"? Does gravity question its own "nature"?

@@cosminvisan520 This is classic. You say they "don't exist" yet they do. What we choose to call them does not make them exist nor does it impute a greater or lesser degree of "meaning" to them. In fact, our consciousness of them has always been predicated on working from effect to cause.

@@cosminvisan520 That's just it, I don't have to. They already do.

@@cosminvisan520 I'd call that a "logic fail" since I've said nothing that is unfalsifiable yet everything I've said simply hasn't been falsified. Listen once more to what Prof. van Fraassen is asserting.

No

@@kos-mos1127 Explain yourself.

@@JungleJargon Science does not state that physical things are contingent. That is a metaphysical assertion. Science also does not state that a physical thing cannot make it direct itself because there is no experiment that science can set up to verify that claim. Science is an epistemology to determine how we know what is true. This is what separates science from metaphysics.

@@kos-mos1127 You can test matter and energy to see if it will write programming that’s not there.

@@JungleJargon Matter and energy wrote us and every structure in the universe. Already passed that test.

Science doesn't seek 'Truth'. Science seeks theories with explanatory AND predictive power

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y *"Science doesn't seek 'Truth'. Science seeks theories with explanatory AND predictive power"* ... Science doesn't seek theories. Science produces theories. Seeking accurate, incontrovertible data is in any situation is tantamount to "seeking the truth."

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC yeah, pretty much what I said Professor Pedantic

@@user-gk9lg5sp4y *"yeah, pretty much what I said Professor Pedantic"* First you wrote: _"Science doesn't seek 'Truth'"_ I replied with: _"Seeking accurate, incontrovertible data is in any situation is tantamount to "seeking the truth."_ ... Now you are claiming that's what you were stating all along. Go figure?

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC OK Sparky, you 'win'

Problem is there are different kinds of is. For instance there is matter and there is movement and they are radically different. Curiously, you can't have one without the other.

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Come, let us reason together. Since only That which is can either affirm or deny that there either is or is not That which is, there is That which is.

@@raycosmic9019 Indeed, 'cogito, ergo sum' has me completely convinced that I exist but I am certain that I knew it in the long ago moment my body became conscious.

@@raycosmic9019 - Here's a version of my previous comment edited to make it a little more reflective of what seems to me most likely... Indeed, 'cogito, ergo sum' has me completely convinced that I exist but I am absolutely certain that I knew it in the long ago moment when my body began to run the being conscious process. The being conscious process is what modulates the self thought process. Some of those modulations are of what the self is conscious. (The 'modulations' are changes in neural discharge frequency. Neural discharge frequency is the means by which analogies are encoded. (Thoughts, like words, are all analogies)). Self evidently, the self lies at the core of what it means to be conscious. I find the work of Julian Jaynes, Douglass Hofstadter, Charles Darwin, Ernest Rutherford and their ilk most inspiring.

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Core Self = That I am Essential Self = What I am Social Self = Who I am My inspiration is from the Gurdjieff Work and Nyingma Buddhism, although I am familiar with the authors you mentioned. The more I explore and discover, the more devoted to practicing Beginner's Mind I become. Since there is That which is, there is not that which is that is other than That which is, for if there was something other, it would still be That which is which we merely call 'other'. Therefore, That which is, is all-inclusive.

Do you know basic physics, Brian?

@@20july1944 I know enough to talk physics with physisists, but I have no "degree" in physics, I am just an old autodidact. Why did you find something falsifiable about what I posted?

@@20july1944 *"Do you know basic physics, Brian?"* ... I will answer in behalf of Brian Stevens and tell you that he understands basic physics. It's never good to begin a discussion with a presuppositional question.

@@brianstevens3858 That's great -- I'm an old autodidact myself. What are the original conditions of your cosmogony?

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I disagree -- if Brian admits he knows nothing about physics then I have nothing to discuss with him. I didn't "presuppose", I ASKED.

Mind is not the matrix of matter that is just an example of a scientist engaging in speculation not science. How we perceive matter and what matter really is are two different things. The reality is matter is diffused in space like a cloud rather than a solid object.

As scientific discoveries continue, the answers and explanations continue so, no, he will get answers at some point either complete or most probably incomplete.

@@ZoiusGM Kuhn will never get a satisfactory answer.

Its like he has no understanding of history

absolutely true ...

Science came from a very "religious" world ... with a belief in some sort of supernatural Creator, everything having a purpose & fixed law of nature. Science is now simply THE METHOD for Man to explain natural phenomena and "scientifically" prove beliefs/hypothesis due to the fixed laws of nature which enable repeatable & predictable behavior or properties of processes/phenomena. Metaphysics is simply various ways of thinking or perceiving existence, leading to beliefs. Science is just a method to explain phenomena based on fixed laws ... and does not need a "belief" about existence. One only needs to be objective, logical, rational, reasonable & ethical. The scientific method is: 1.Observe (natural phenomena) 2. Hypothesis ( explain) 3. Test & predict 4. Conclude 5. Refine ( if the Hypothesis have merit) See. Science does not need Metaphysics to scientifically prove a hypothesis or firm belief. You want to know the origin of the Universe & life ... then start with an OBSERVATION of related phenomena with known origin ... then make a testable HYPOTHESIS. Universal Functions ... is the hypothesis that explains Sir Issac newton's Watchmaker Analogy and any Machine Analogy used to prove Intelligent design. A machine & watch are Functions ... but so too is the Universe, sun, earth, atmosphere, air, water, .....life. All Functions are made by an intelligence. And to prove the Univesre & Life are Functions ... you simply have to FULLY define the Function & Intelligence Categories to confirm what a Function is and that it can only be made by an Intelligence. There is not evidence that nature can make a Function. And the reason Functions can only be made by an intelligence is because they all are processes, with purpose form, design & properties ... which are INFORMATION that every function possess to exist & to function. Information can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence. Again. No metaphysics required. You just have to be OBJECTIVE, logical, rational, reasonable & ethical. Why do most reject Machine analogies and call them fake science from theists? Are they following the "science" or their beliefs? Machine Analogies .... are OBSERVATIONS ... that the Universe & life are like Machines They are not the proof. You have to make a Hypothesis to explain the observation. And then you test the hypothesis. Most who reject Machines Analogies ... are themselves following fake science, & their own religion ... and are not objective, rational logical, reasonable or ethical. These same people reject the origin of any thermodynamic System ... when when applied to the Universe & Life. All thermodynamic systems are FUNCTIONS ... and originate from the surrounding systems which must provide the matter, energy, space, time, laws & intelligence to exist & to function. We know the Universe is an isolated thermodynamic System. And yet there is not one origin theory of Universe ... being a National system that was "made" in an UNNATURAL "surrounding" System. Subjective illogical, irrational unreasonable & unethical behavior .... of most in the sciences ... who don't believe God created the Universe. Science has been corrupted by religious zealots .... called Atheists or Materialists ... deceiving all people with "we follow the facts & science." smh.

@@abelincoln8885 The Universe is the surrounding and there be nothing surrounding the universe. The Universe is not a part it is the whole that includes all parts.

Science came out of natural philosophy not metaphysics.

Wow, I think The guy being interviewed is a pompous idiot but I think that about LeBron James too. It has nothing to do with skin color. You might want to judge people by their ideas and actions rather than by their skin pigmentation, just a suggestion.

Metaphysics does not decide what exists and what does not exist as well. It is not enough to understand reality.

@@kos-mos1127 no but it gives a hint at what could exist. And it is as necessary as science to get a full picture of reality. Furthermore it can help you decide which experiments to conduct

@@ChristianSt97 Philosophy decided what experiments to run not metaphysics.

@@kos-mos1127 but isnt metaphysics a big part of philosophy?

@@ChristianSt97 Science uses natural philosophy not metaphysics. There is no way in principle to test metaphysics. Natural philosophy can be tested.

You don't mean God is falsifiable, but more that science COULD show there is no reason to infer a God if we had an airtight cosmogony/abiogenesis model without an intelligent agent.

@@20july1944 *"You don't mean God is falsifiable, but more that science COULD show there is no reason to infer a God if we had an airtight cosmogony/abiogenesis model without an intelligent agent."* ... I do not believe in God, but if an explanation for the origin of all things can be demonstrated through science, then the proposition of an almighty God would indeed be falsifiable. The scenario you just offered serves as that falsifiability

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC No, I mean God is not falsifiable -- I think that's obvious. if we had an airtight cosmogony/abiogenesis model without an intelligent agent a theist could still posit that's how God set it up. Falsifying something is an excessive standard of disproof.

@@20july1944 *"if we had an airtight cosmogony/abiogenesis model without an intelligent agent a theist could still posit that's how God set it up."* ... That's a self-contradiction. An airtight explanation for the existence of everything that eliminates the necessity for any God(s) could not be orchestrated by the same God that has summarily been eliminated via the explanation.

@@JungleJargon *"So you admit that you have no evidence of a natural cause."* ... Where have I admitted that I have no natural explanation for existence? Will you copy and paste that for me in your next comment, please?