Misconceiving Truth

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Gee » Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:04 pm

the Hessian wrote:
Gee wrote:An IQ test has become the mark of a superior human without regard to personality, talents and abilities, disposition, and a host of other traits, and this does not even consider our evaluation of other species.
G
When did this happen exactly? I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.
I don't see how you could miss it. Of the four forums that I have visited, this may be the only one that has not had a thread that compares the oriental, white, and black peoples by IQ. I suspect that these threads are produced by neo-nazi types, but that does not change the fact that people feel the need to justify the races that are "supposedly" lower in IQ. This need to justify indicates a belief in the evaluation process. Are you saying that you have never seen this tripe?

Or you can go to a magazine rack and look up parenting magazines. In at least one of them, you will find an article that tells parents how to raise their child's IQ. There are lots of examples of this type of thinking where higher IQ is represented as value, and even superiority.

Maybe I am more sensitive having been a victim of this type of madness in childhood. In the fourth and seventh grades I was given IQ tests. I never had so much fun in school, but the aftermath was terrible. My classes were all changed; I was sent to psychologists; and my family was visited by protective social services. My fifth grade teacher later told me that she had nightmares about me, because I had this brilliant mind that she could not reach. Once I realized that the testing was behind the madness, I vowed to never take another IQ test, and I never have.

So I am in a position to know that a high IQ has nothing to do with superior humans. I am very average. Of course, MS (Multiple Sclerosis) has done a wonderful job of scarring up my brain and making me a little stupid, so I am now working on my personality. (chuckle) It is a work in progress.
the Hessian wrote:Look, G, I have some sympathy for what I think you're trying to say. But, what does perspective have to do with the apparent truth of water freezing at 0C? Or the square of the length of the hypotenuse equaling the sum of the squares of the other two sides? Or the conversion of fuel into mechanical energy that helps me drive to work every day? Even the differing perspectives about motion that you referenced can be explained using formulae that describe these differing relations.
Nothing. What you are talking about are facts. Very brief history; philosophy began as a study of that which is real and true. It was soon discovered that some things are true without respect to perspective and/or time. These truths are stable and do not change, so a branch of philosophy evolved and broke off to study these static truths. That branch is science and these truths are now called facts. Facts are not relative to perspective, but truth still is.
the Hessian wrote:There are lots of things that are perspective, perspective, perspective. Value judgements, aesthetic tastes, design choices. We can make a mess of things when we try to assert too much truth here. But we can also make a mess of things when we try to deny or distort truth where we know better.
Agreed. If you read my earlier post to WanderingLands, I hope that I made it clear that mixing truth and facts, using them interchangeably, leads to idealism. I think that it is important to understand the difference between what constitutes a fact and what is a truth.

Regarding your above paragraph, I think that "tastes" are more personal, but judgment and choices are about wisdom, and wisdom is an advanced level of truth. Philosophy means quite literally love of wisdom.

G

the Hessian
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:58 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by the Hessian » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:00 pm

Gee wrote:
the Hessian wrote:
Gee wrote:An IQ test has become the mark of a superior human without regard to personality, talents and abilities, disposition, and a host of other traits, and this does not even consider our evaluation of other species.
G
When did this happen exactly? I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.
I don't see how you could miss it.
George Bush became president.

Seriously, there certainly aren't very many real examples of people using IQ tests for anything, especially without regard to personality, talent and demonstrated ability. The tests exist, yes, but who's doing anything with them? Unless you're talking about applying for a membership in Mensa.
Gee wrote:Of the four forums that I have visited, this may be the only one that has not had a thread that compares the oriental, white, and black peoples by IQ. I suspect that these threads are produced by neo-nazi types, but that does not change the fact that people feel the need to justify the races that are "supposedly" lower in IQ. This need to justify indicates a belief in the evaluation process. Are you saying that you have never seen this tripe?
It is hardly mainstream, and hardly serious. If and when it does show up, it reflects a belief in their own prejudices then it does in the evaluation process. I doubt the neo-nazi spontaenously sprung into existence because it read about the IQ test.
Gee wrote:Or you can go to a magazine rack and look up parenting magazines. In at least one of them, you will find an article that tells parents how to raise their child's IQ. There are lots of examples of this type of thinking where higher IQ is represented as value, and even superiority.
You find this shocking how? Higher IQ scores positively correlate with a range of desirable potential outcomes, while lower IQ scores positively correlate with a range of undesirable potential outcomes. It is a statistical indicator with some level of predictive power.
Gee wrote:So I am in a position to know that a high IQ has nothing to do with superior humans. I am very average. Of course, MS (Multiple Sclerosis) has done a wonderful job of scarring up my brain and making me a little stupid, so I am now working on my personality. (chuckle) It is a work in progress.
I think you have more to say about the notion of "superior humans" in general than you do about IQ per se. Again, in my experience, it just really isn't very common to run into the "high IQ equals superior human being" assertion.

(And, btw, from what I can tell from your posts, your personality is progressing just fine, although admittedly I don't have anything to compare it against).
Gee wrote:
the Hessian wrote:Look, G, I have some sympathy for what I think you're trying to say. But, what does perspective have to do with the apparent truth of water freezing at 0C? Or the square of the length of the hypotenuse equaling the sum of the squares of the other two sides? Or the conversion of fuel into mechanical energy that helps me drive to work every day? Even the differing perspectives about motion that you referenced can be explained using formulae that describe these differing relations.
Nothing. What you are talking about are facts. Very brief history; philosophy began as a study of that which is real and true. It was soon discovered that some things are true without respect to perspective and/or time. These truths are stable and do not change, so a branch of philosophy evolved and broke off to study these static truths. That branch is science and these truths are now called facts. Facts are not relative to perspective, but truth still is.
I'm not sure I understand the difference you are trying to make.
Gee wrote:
the Hessian wrote:There are lots of things that are perspective, perspective, perspective. Value judgements, aesthetic tastes, design choices. We can make a mess of things when we try to assert too much truth here. But we can also make a mess of things when we try to deny or distort truth where we know better.
Agreed. If you read my earlier post to WanderingLands, I hope that I made it clear that mixing truth and facts, using them interchangeably, leads to idealism. I think that it is important to understand the difference between what constitutes a fact and what is a truth.
Cool! I just said I wasn't sure about the difference you were trying to make!
Gee wrote: judgment and choices are about wisdom, and wisdom is an advanced level of truth. Philosophy means quite literally love of wisdom.
That doesn't help me though. What is the difference between a truth and an "advanced" truth? Is wisdom rational or irrational? Is the belief of the neo-nazi rational or irrational?

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Ginkgo » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:26 pm

cladking wrote:
There is such thing as absolute truth but it's only true from a defined perspective and in defined terms. Everything else is perspective. We "believe" in modern science but most people can't define it much less understand it. Few scientists even have a metaphysial understanding of it. Everything exists within a framework of what we believe and a framework or format imposed by language. We are our thoughts and our thoughts are in language. Specialization complicates this further still.
This is not actually correct. I have explained this a number of times, nonetheless I will make another attempt at clarifying metaphysics and science in relation to your statement.

Your "absolute truth" is a metaphysical ontological conclusion in relation to the way reality is. Science doesn't deal in such conclusions because to do so, one would no longer be doing science. I think it is important to get a handle on the fact that science deals in non-metaphysical ontological conclusions. The confusion is not with the scientists, but with people who cannot or will not understand the difference.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:46 pm

Ginkgo wrote:...Your "absolute truth" is a metaphysical ontological conclusion in relation to the way reality is...
I see it differently. The absolute truth is reality, they are 100% synonymous, meaning exactly the same thing. Another way to say it is the "actuality" of the universe. I use it to segregate the actual fact of the universal matter from mans belief, that he often proposes as potential truth, with his hypotheses and theories, a means to contrast mans learning curve. If not absolute truth, what terms do you use to speak of such things?

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Ginkgo » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:07 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:...Your "absolute truth" is a metaphysical ontological conclusion in relation to the way reality is...
I see it differently. The absolute truth is reality, they are 100% synonymous, meaning exactly the same thing. Another way to say it is the "actuality" of the universe. I use it to segregate the actual fact of the universal matter from mans belief, that he often proposes as potential truth, with his hypotheses and theories, a means to contrast mans learning curve. If not absolute truth, what terms do you use to speak of such things?

Interestingly enough you seem to see it the way I do by way of your dichotomy. My statement is just saying that science doesn't recognize any dichotomy (segregation) in these matters. Metaphysicians deal with absolute truths, or metaphysical ontological conclusions while science only deals with the other half; non-metaphysical ontological conclusions.

I happen to think the idea of "segregation" is reasonable, but science doesn't acknowledge this because as soon as it does there is no science, just metaphysics. My statement is not a rebuttal of metaphysics, just the need to draw a very important distinction.

the Hessian
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:58 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by the Hessian » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:55 pm

Ginkgo wrote: Metaphysicians deal with (...) metaphysical ontological conclusions while science only deals with the other half; non-metaphysical ontological conclusions.
That definition does absolutely nothing to help me understand the difference.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:11 am

Ginkgo wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:...Your "absolute truth" is a metaphysical ontological conclusion in relation to the way reality is...
I see it differently. The absolute truth is reality, they are 100% synonymous, meaning exactly the same thing. Another way to say it is the "actuality" of the universe. I use it to segregate the actual fact of the universal matter from mans belief, that he often proposes as potential truth, with his hypotheses and theories, a means to contrast mans learning curve. If not absolute truth, what terms do you use to speak of such things?

Interestingly enough you seem to see it the way I do by way of your dichotomy. My statement is just saying that science doesn't recognize any dichotomy (segregation) in these matters. Metaphysicians deal with absolute truths, or metaphysical ontological conclusions while science only deals with the other half; non-metaphysical ontological conclusions.

I happen to think the idea of "segregation" is reasonable, but science doesn't acknowledge this because as soon as it does there is no science, just metaphysics. My statement is not a rebuttal of metaphysics, just the need to draw a very important distinction.
I understand. I think that's a good idea. Not that I'm not a proponent of science, I am, but I require a much larger vista, so as to place man where he rightfully belongs amongst the cosmos, as it's child.

Sappho de Miranda
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 10:23 am

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Sappho de Miranda » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:25 am

Gee wrote: Well, I don't do science, I do philosophy. Specifically I study consciousness. Decades of study have produced my definition of consciousness as a "self-balancing chaos, motivated by want, in perpetual motion". Some physics people at a science forum noted that my definition could also be applied to matter, so I think that ordinary observation and perception can have some merit.
I don’t 'do' science either Gee. And to be perfectly frank with you, I don't 'do' Philosophy. Nor do I 'do' Law, Psychology, Neurology, Mythology, Mathematics or any other discipline. I 'do' think however upon all those disciplines and many others not mentioned. I 'do' read within those disciplines and many others not mentioned. I 'do' learn the skills I need to think about those disciplines and many others not mentioned. I 'do' explore and re-evaluate my thinking with likeminded people .

As to consciousness, I'm rather impressed with the thinking of Dan Dennett, even though his philosophical thinking is founded in cognitive science. He would argue and rather persuasively that consciousness is nothing more than an illusion.

I wonder though how you feel about the philosophies of Dan Dennett given that you don't 'do' science?

With regard to Descartes, I note that the quote you provide supports the idea of movement so we are on the same page after all. I am curious however to know what perpetual motion means to you though and how Descartes 'may deny a large body of cause and effect' given that idea? Are you suggesting that consciousness is not of this 'energy' to which you refer. If not, what is it?

As a side note, Descartes also taught that the one thing we cannot question and so can never doubt is that I exist. I don't know if you exist mind... but I do know without a doubt that I think, therefore, I am.

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by cladking » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:44 am

Ginkgo wrote:
cladking wrote:
There is such thing as absolute truth but it's only true from a defined perspective and in defined terms. Everything else is perspective. We "believe" in modern science but most people can't define it much less understand it. Few scientists even have a metaphysial understanding of it. Everything exists within a framework of what we believe and a framework or format imposed by language. We are our thoughts and our thoughts are in language. Specialization complicates this further still.
This is not actually correct. I have explained this a number of times, nonetheless I will make another attempt at clarifying metaphysics and science in relation to your statement.

Your "absolute truth" is a metaphysical ontological conclusion in relation to the way reality is. Science doesn't deal in such conclusions because to do so, one would no longer be doing science. I think it is important to get a handle on the fact that science deals in non-metaphysical ontological conclusions. The confusion is not with the scientists, but with people who cannot or will not understand the difference.

It is correct but it can't be easily seen from our perspective of omniscience.

The primary problem in this specific case of miscommunication is that we are using two different definitions of "metaphysics". I am using the term in the sense of a system to organize knowledge and learn about something. "Science" functions through its metaphysics. It is observation and experiment and the results of those experiments. When you use our language and our science there is a tendency for individuals to see only what they know and to be blind to what they don't know. A belief in human omniscience follows.

Despite the fact that by any rational measure humans don't now any more than the tiniest fragment of a millionth of 1% of everything there is to know we believe that in aggregate nearly everything is known.

I guess people didn't notice that 80 c / g of heat is missing from supercooled water when it freezes. Maybe they didn't see it or figure someone must know. Anyone ever ask himself that if a boat displaces a pound of water and gains a pound of bouyancy then how is that bouyancy accounted for in the equation from the perspective of the body of water. The water can't get a pound heavier without that pound appearing somewhere.

We see from a perspective and think of it as the only possible perspective. It is not.

the Hessian
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:58 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by the Hessian » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:56 am

cladking wrote:A belief in human omniscience follows.
My admittedly limited experience with science has always resulted in the opposite. And almost always when I read about the experiences of people who engage with science a lot, they tend to promote the opposite.
cladking wrote: Despite the fact that by any rational measure humans don't now any more than the tiniest fragment of a millionth of 1% of everything there is to know we believe that in aggregate nearly everything is known.
Who believes that? Engaging with science certainly doesn't lead one to that conclusion at all.
cladking wrote:We see from a perspective and think of it as the only possible perspective. It is not.
So much of what you say seems to depend on a real misrepresentation of science. Separate the process of science from the notion of the scientist (the person who routinely "does" science). All kinds of scientists have all kinds of different metaphysical beliefs. The interesting thing to me is that it really doesn't matter. The different metaphysical beliefs have absolutely no impact on the outcomes of doing science. I can believe that there is a god, or that there is not a god, or that my thoughts represent faithfully things in the outside world, or that I can never know the real things in themselves, or that my brain constructs the illusion of space and time when it perceives objects, or that everything that I perceive is a thought put in my head my Descartes' duplicitious genie, or that I am plugged into the Matrix. I can freely substituate any of these beliefs for any other and it doesn't change the science in any way. Nothing changes. Nothing is lost when I change from one to the other, and nothing is gained when I change from one to the other. The metaphysical beliefs are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

From my perspective, there's something important about that. In a world that we co-habitate with other people, and where people often can't seem to get along because they believe different things, there's something beautiful about a knowledge that is the repeatedly, predictably and demonstrably the same for everyone, regardless of what they believe. It gives me hope.

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by cladking » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:05 am

the Hessian wrote:
My admittedly limited experience with science has always resulted in the opposite. And almost always when I read about the experiences of people who engage with science a lot, they tend to promote the opposite.

Who believes that? Engaging with science certainly doesn't lead one to that conclusion at all.
Any good scientist will say that and most believe it on at least some level. But actions count far more than words. Hypotheses based on nothing but computer modeling and guesses are now days considered "settled science". We are stripping the earth of resources and converting them to garbage with hardly an intervening stage in a mad rush for immediate profits that benefit only the few as we politicize computer modeling and elevate it to fact. Meanwhile politicians work feverishly to exascerbate the problem so more money can be made in the short term.

These aren't the actions of people who don't know everything. This belief in human omniscience permeates all fields and is causing massive destruction on a biblical scale.
So much of what you say seems to depend on a real misrepresentation of science. Separate the process of science from the notion of the scientist (the person who routinely "does" science). All kinds of scientists have all kinds of different metaphysical beliefs. The interesting thing to me is that it really doesn't matter. The different metaphysical beliefs have absolutely no impact on the outcomes of doing science. I can believe that there is a god, or that there is not a god, or that my thoughts represent faithfully things in the outside world, or that I can never know the real things in themselves, or that my brain constructs the illusion of space and time when it perceives objects, or that everything that I perceive is a thought put in my head my Descartes' duplicitious genie, or that I am plugged into the Matrix. I can freely substituate any of these beliefs for any other and it doesn't change the science in any way. Nothing changes. Nothing is lost when I change from one to the other, and nothing is gained when I change from one to the other. The metaphysical beliefs are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.
I'm looking at science from a perspective outside of science. This perspective is formed by modern science but is based on observation and logic rather than observation and experiment.

Again I'm using "metaphysics" to mean a system to learn about nature.

Perspective is everything. Most aeronautical engineers and pilots mistakingly believe that an airplane can't take off from a conveyor belt running in the opposite direction. In most cases this is caused by confusion of perspective because the question leads one to change his perspective in the determination. There are other reasons people miss this but it's always the same; most people are wrong most of the time when making statements about nature and how it works. We use too narrow a perspective or too broad or we change perspectives in the middle of a solution. We say the sun went down at 8:30 even knowing full well that the turning earth hid it behind the horizon.

This is systemic not because science is flawed but because language is flawed and it's invisible to us because we always know what we ourselves mean. We see technology and tremendoius knowledge and extrapolate it to mean weare intelligent and know far more than we really do.
From my perspective, there's something important about that. In a world that we co-habitate with other people, and where people often can't seem to get along because they believe different things, there's something beautiful about a knowledge that is the repeatedly, predictably and demonstrably the same for everyone, regardless of what they believe. It gives me hope.
Science is repeatable because it's a peek into natural law and natural logic like math. Mostly it is repeatable because science has its own language (math) which isn't confused like other modern language. Science is repeatable because nature is repeatable and we can describe this in mathmatical terms that can't be confused (readily). But nothing in science suggests we are intelligent or that we know the consequences of our actions. This knowledge should lead us to tread more carefully but instead we are stomping on everything and especially logic and common sense.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Ginkgo » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:28 am

cladking

Science does not function through metaphysics, it functions through the scientific method. So yes you are correct when you say you are looking at science through a perspective out side of science. That perspective is a metaphysical perspective.

Metaphysics can use observation to explain the way the world is (metaphysical ontological conclusion) but it can't do experiments to prove these conclusions. Can you come up with an experiment to test the essences of being? Can you come up with an experiment to test a final cause? Can you come up with an experiment to test substance dualism?

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Gee » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:32 am

the Hessian wrote:
Gee wrote:
the Hessian wrote:Gee stated: "An IQ test has become the mark of a superior human without regard to personality, talents and abilities, disposition, and a host of other traits, and this does not even consider our evaluation of other species."

When did this happen exactly? I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.
I don't see how you could miss it.
George Bush became president.
Twice. (chuckle chuckle) Just for that point you ought to win this argument. But consider; this idea of advanced position and advanced IQ goes both ways. People will assume that the advanced, superior, position of running for President indicates an advanced, superior, intellect. No one would vote for a President that was as dumb as a box of rocks. Even though there were clues, people missed the clues, because they assumed otherwise.
the Hessian wrote:
Gee wrote:Or you can go to a magazine rack and look up parenting magazines. In at least one of them, you will find an article that tells parents how to raise their child's IQ. There are lots of examples of this type of thinking where higher IQ is represented as value, and even superiority.
You find this shocking how? Higher IQ scores positively correlate with a range of desirable potential outcomes, while lower IQ scores positively correlate with a range of undesirable potential outcomes. It is a statistical indicator with some level of predictive power.

No it is not. This is my point that it is all illusion, PR work, BS. People in successful positions pretend to a higher IQ, or imply a higher IQ, but the truth of the matter is that high IQ people make up a large percentage of high school drop-outs.

I actually called Mensa 40 some years ago and found that I would have to pay for a test, about $20 or $25, back then, and I would have to pay for membership. The woman on the phone was very frank with me and explained that being a Mensan did not mean that I would find employment, and could cause me to get fired. She explained that some supervisors might be worried that I could take over their position, so they would ensure that I did not. She further explained that there are truck drivers, strippers, waitresses, and garbage men, who are card carrying Mensans. Many are referred to as "closet members" because for one reason or another they do not want to disclose their membership. So could your garbage man have a higher IQ than your doctor? Yep.

Most "successful" people run on the high side of average, or are average IQ, or their last name is Bush. That is the only indicator of success.
the Hessian wrote:
Gee wrote:Nothing. What you are talking about are facts. Very brief history; philosophy began as a study of that which is real and true. It was soon discovered that some things are true without respect to perspective and/or time. These truths are stable and do not change, so a branch of philosophy evolved and broke off to study these static truths. That branch is science and these truths are now called facts. Facts are not relative to perspective, but truth still is.
I'm not sure I understand the difference you are trying to make.
Try this; many years ago, I read that American families have two and a half children, statistically. This was a fact. But American women did not have two children, then become perpetually pregnant, so this was not truth. Not long after having our third child, we tried to buy a new car, but could not find a car that did not have a large lump in the middle of the back seat, where apparently the half child was supposed to sit. Car makers were listening to the "perspective" of statistics, but I wish they would have paid a little more attention the families' perspective of truth. I also remember that I could not buy a toothbrush holder with more than four holes -- apparently, half children do not need to brush their teeth.
the Hessian wrote:
Gee wrote: judgment and choices are about wisdom, and wisdom is an advanced level of truth. Philosophy means quite literally love of wisdom.
That doesn't help me though. What is the difference between a truth and an "advanced" truth?

Age, experience, and perspective(s). A child's perspective is that adults drive cars and adults follow the rules, so if the child runs into the road, the driver will stop his car and not damage the child. An adult understands the child's perspective, knows that the child may follow a ball into the road, and knows the perspective of the drivers, so he knows that drivers can be reflex driving, distracted, or just day dreaming. Because the adult sees all of these perspectives, he knows more truth, his judgment is better, he is wiser.
the Hessian wrote:Is wisdom rational or irrational? Is the belief of the neo-nazi rational or irrational?
The questions are irrelevant. Truth has nothing to do with rationality, truth is what it is -- real. What you are asking are moral questions. When you mix truth with rationality, you end up with ideology.

G

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by cladking » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:52 am

Ginkgo wrote:cladking

Science does not function through metaphysics, it functions through the scientific method. So yes you are correct when you say you are looking at science through a perspective out side of science. That perspective is a metaphysical perspective.

Metaphysics can use observation to explain the way the world is (metaphysical ontological conclusion) but it can't do experiments to prove these conclusions. Can you come up with an experiment to test the essences of being? Can you come up with an experiment to test a final cause? Can you come up with an experiment to test substance dualism?
Science is founded on metaphysics by definition. It is a very simple metaphysics but it is the way science works and it doesn't work (or at least has not been shown to work) outside of this metaphysics. Science is euclidean geometry and observation > experiment. It is the results of previous experiment. "Scientific method" is certainly an important part of the metaphysics.

Observation and natural logic is most probably a perfectly viable metaphysics. It is the vantage from which I'm trying to see modern science. There is no "experiment" per se at this vantage but I can still step out and perform an experiment at will. I can still apply any knowledge gained to better use this vantage point.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Ginkgo » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:57 am

the Hessian wrote:
Ginkgo wrote: Metaphysicians deal with (...) metaphysical ontological conclusions while science only deals with the other half; non-metaphysical ontological conclusions.
That definition does absolutely nothing to help me understand the difference.
An important aspect of metaphysics is the study of ontology. Both science and metaphysics make certain claims, and draw conclusions from ontology. The confusion is centered on the belief that somehow science and metaphysics are using the same methodology. This is not correct, science and metaphysics come to different ontological conclusions. The confusion exists with the lay person,not with the scientist.

Cladking is proposing an ontology by asking question in relation to how the world is. In other words, he is saying "The world is such a place whereby absolute truth(s) exist". This is a metaphysical conclusion because he is saying that absolute truth is a property of reality.

A non-metaphysical scientific conclusion is not a conclusion about reality, so any idea that scientists are somehow claiming some type of 'omnipotence' when comes to knowledge is incorrect. Scientific claims are about posited entities that may or may not exist in the world. The validity of these entities will be confirmed or rejected based on the scientific method. Absolute truths are like any other universal claim to reality. They can never be proved or disproved.
Last edited by Ginkgo on Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests