Veritas Aequitas wrote:At present which philosopher or any group of philosophers agree that Metaphysics is possible as a Science in general?
Since Quine revived metaphysics in analytic philosophy it has stayed firmly on the agenda.
Metaphysics in Analytic Philosophy
As the new millennium dawned, however, it was clear not only that metaphysics was no longer dead, but that its resurrection as analytic metaphysics was one of the more remarkable developments in philosophy in general and in its analytic strain in particular.
Also note:
Analytic Philosophy
Science has also had an increasingly significant role in metaphysics. The theory of special relativity has had a profound effect on the philosophy of time, and quantum physics is routinely discussed in the free will debate. The weight given to scientific evidence is largely due to widespread commitments among philosophers to scientific realism and naturalism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
I challenge you to prove the absolutely absolute exists?
Prove to me your realism [philosophical - critical] is absolutely absolute? This is the same as the OP's challenge.
That's a completely ridiculous challenge. ANYTHING that you regard as real (the universe, consciousness, the subject, you, etc.) becomes your absolute, and that works for every type of idealist, too. Even if one embraced the only ontological committment compatible with your anti-realism, the void, that is still an absolute.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
I don't believe in any absolutely absolute.
My empirical realism is relative and conditional, and so is my transcendental idealism which by definition is relative to the human conditions.
Your "human conditions" are the absolute you are positing. The boldest and most daring relativism always requires a system of reference as a foundational reality. That's why anti-realism is constantly shooting itself in the foot, having to posit something as real, which idealists are perfectly happy to acknowledge, as long as it is not a material reality. At the end of the day, that's all what idealists want: to promote the reality and primacy of the "spirit", aka consciousness.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Note I claimed your realism [you claimed it is absolute] is idealistic because you are only in contact with the ideas [sense data] of your reality and is never in contact with the supposed reality. Your supposed reality is a transcendental reality.
Then you use ideas [ideal] to infer your supposed reality.
As such, whatever the reality you claim, what is most real to you is merely idealistic, thus empirical idealism or transcendental realism.
This claim of yours reveals that you're the victim of your own arguments. The same phenomenological critique you apply to realism, ends up undermining your own stance, since you're just replacing the "supposed transcendental reality" of realists with your supposed immanent ideality, which operates exactly under the same assumption of direct contact with something real (the reality of sense data and ideas). If phenomenalists like you were coherent, they would apply the same skepticism to the reality of experience, landing on epistemological nihilism or Berkeley's solipsism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Note the difference between sense i.e. the faculties of the 5 senses and reason.
The claim of invisible, mysterious, teleological forces and the likes is not common sense but rather an inference of reason, i.e. by the human crude and pure reason that produce fallacious inferences.
Common sense thus is related to the 5 common senses and what you sensed is what you get.
You're obviously completely ignorant of what is referred to as the common sense view.
Philosophy of Common Sense
Philosophy of common sense, 18th- and early 19th-century Scottish school of Thomas Reid, Adam Ferguson, Dugald Stewart, and others, who held that in the actual perception of the average, unsophisticated man, sensations are not mere ideas or subjective impressions but carry with them the belief in corresponding qualities as belonging to external objects. Such beliefs, Reid insisted, “belong to the common sense and reason of mankind”; and in matters of common sense “the learned and the unlearned, the philosopher and the day-labourer, are upon a level.”
Note that the spiritual, immaterial bodies that populated the heavens purported by theologians, were for them real external objects, and the magical forces involved were also real, external and objective. Only with the advent of modern science such poor and precarious rationalizations were revealed as untenable for a realistic view of the world.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
The age of the moon is a scientific fact, thus not illusory in that sense.
So the question of 'illusion' does not arise in this sense.
But note, all scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.
There is no 100% certainty with scientific facts, it is possible a scientific fact could be wrong.
However if you were to claim 100% absolute certainty for whatever scientific facts are of the moon, then that would be illusory.
This is a common misconception peddled by anti-science propagandists distorting some claims of philosophers of science. Not all scientific assertions imply absolute certainty, and there are many fields of science, especially those which are relevant to contemporary issues, where research has produced pretty solid evidence in favor of a given model or theory, but nevertheless they allow for refinement and even replacement. And there is outright speculation in some relatively new fields, such as theoretical physics. So it has always been fair to say that, in general, science research produces provisional knowledge, rejecting dogmatic approaches and promoting what works best for science: its method, requiring that everything be tested and retested in order to improve the current state of knowledge. The anti-science gang has wanted to exploit this to mean that claims coming from all scientific fields, from all subjects, from all aspects of reality are always, uniformly, only partially reliable. But that's simply not true. No serious scientist is challenging and retesting the scientific fact of the sun in our planetary system, as if it were just a 'polished conjecture', nor the existence of planet Mercury as the closest in orbit to that sun, nor the existence of the Earth's moon and its age. In such particular cases, talking about "absolute" certainty is in no way undermining science's general ability to challenge its own claims. To claim these well-established facts are speculative or even worst, illusory, is completely preposterous, it shows ignorance and very little recognition of the value of science.
In any case, your response that the age of the Moon is not illusory, implies that the entity affected by age is not illusory either. And if the Moon and its age are not illusory, neither is illusory the existence of the Moon in a time when humans were not around. If the existence of the Moon in a time when humans were not around is not illusory, then the existence of the Moon independent of human perception cannot be illusory. If the existence of the Moon independent of human perception is not illusory, the Moon in itself is not illusory.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:Conde Lucanor wrote:
So, is that your answer? That the discovery of the electron has nothing to do with what's real, but with what fits into Thomson's theoretical framework? Did electrons exist before Thomson?
There were no "electrons" before Thomson.
Whatever is an "electron" [or whatever the name] after Thomson is conditioned upon the scientific framework and that is at best a polished conjecture.
There is no electron-in-itself [note OP] either before or after Thomson.
Well, that would imply that Thomson, a body composed of fundamental particles, nor any human, have ever existed in themselves, even though they, paradoxically, just like the Moon, do age. One has to wonder where scientific frameworks come from, since the beings that are supposedly their creators, are ultimately illusory, too. There is no brain in itself, there is no neuron in itself, no synapse in itself, there is no conscious activity in itself, no mental state in itself, no cognition in itself, no experience in itself. You can't get more absurd.