Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 11:37 am
Yes, I got that. I should've made that clearer; sorry!
![😉](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f609.svg)
I was expanding on the point you made, not challenging it.
No worries.
The stereotypical examples are: 'does God exist?' and 'could we be brains-in-vats?' There are many other examples, of course.
It seems to me that we can't rule out either of those being determined to be true at some point by science. Brain in a vat scenarios are often talked about these days in terms of simulations. Science could discover glitches. We could end up in communication with the programmers. We might develop simulated technology that nonetheless can figure out this is a simulation. The programmers might be able to stop this or they might not. They might be looking forward to that moment. Who knows? If there is a deity, this deity might also be demonstrable. Perhaps nto, perhaps. I can't see how it could be ruled out. I have the same attitude to the possible existence of most supernatural entities (those that get classes as such). That we cannot rule out that one day these can be demonstrated to be the case. Perhaps some already have good evidence to support them, but the paradigmatic conflict is too great, now, for acceptance within the greater scientific community.
Many metaphysical subjects cannot be verified, or falsified, because there is too little (empirical) evidence
Now. But I see no reason to assume that there is a categorical difference. IOW saying these things cannot be known/verified via science—
often there is no evidence at all.
Which was the status of many things that scienific consensus now considers real.
I am not arguing that now we have evidence such that scientists should acknowledge all these metaphysical entities or truths. I am saying that it seems to me caution is necessary when putting things is a category such as
"Metaphysics addresses ideas and problems that are 'unscientific', i.e. outside the purview of science"
I don't know what an unscientific idea is. Pretty much any hypothesis lacks evidence until it does.
You could categorize many things as not currently supported by scientific consesnsus. But saying that something is outside the purview of science seems to me an ontological claim that itself lacks evidence.
Without this evidence, there can be no analysis or other serious consideration, and therefore no justified conclusion(s) can be reached.
In the communal conclusions are reached via science. But one can certainly give serious consideration to things that are experienced, especially if you are the experiencer and you have contact with others who have similar experiences. It can be quite rational to believe things that cannot be demonstrated to others and also that cannot be studied in the kinds of controlled experiments science requires.
It was rational for certain people in Africa to believe that elephants could communicate over long distances. They did not know the way elephants might be able to do this and they were pretty much making a kind of they are telepathic claim. On the other hand they noted the behavior of elephants and deduced correctly it should be added that they were communicating. Long, long after these rational conclusions the mode of communication could be found and science caught up to the rational conclusions of people who had long observed elephants. It also needed some changes in technology to confirm.
Rogue waves are another example, where individuals and crews experienced something that did not fit with then current scientific models. So, their experiences, to some degree communal between sailors, and their conclusions were dismissed, despite being quite rational conclusions based on phenomena that were then hard to demonstrate to others. Technology changes, first with cameras on bridges and then with satellites and, lo, they were real, and explanations for their existence were then found.
So, rational people have drawn rational conclusions about all sorts of things, but paradigmatic and technological limitations prevented scientists and certainly scientific consensus from confirming. But, as I am arguing, this does not mean that all rational conclusions must necessarily be verified by science. And especially people with similar experiences can have rational discussions and do analyses.
I mean, think of the very odd scientific taboo around considering animals as something other than mechanical entities. Up into the 70s you could still damage your careet by talking about animal consciousness, intentions, reactions, goals, emotions, experience. And of course there was no way to demonstrate that anmals were experiencers. Pet owners, indigenous people, animal trainers all knew that animals were conscious experiencers with emotional lives, etc. Their paradigms did not get in the way of the obvious. And of course indigenous people knew that animals were conscious hundreds to thousands of years before science finally got around to acknowledging the obvious. I have wondered if the increasing numbers of women scientists were a contributing factor in this shift.
Science is skewed by paradigmatic biases, corporate funding focus and bias, technological limitations and likely other factors.
Now please don't take this as anti-science. I have been reading science in both senses for more decades then I care to mention. I love science and recognize its greatness. I also do not think it is the only way to reach quite rational and even fundamental conclusions.
In such cases, speculation is all we have, and the benefit, if any, of discussing such matters is in the journey. And often that 'journey'
is worthwhile, because of the interesting (and speculative, mostly) ideas it generates, IME and IMO.