Why is there such a knee-jerk hatred of metaphysics in le

Because metaphysics claims to be a science, while explaining nothing whatsoever

>>1482761
No, it doesn't lol. Literally meta-physics. It's supposed to be beyond physics

hi

Because pataphysics explains everything better.

>>1482752
Because there's literally no point in it.

>>1482765

Then why are you surprised when it isn't taken seriously as a field of study? You want metaphysics to be analytical, except when it needs to deliver some results

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either accept that metaphysics has fairly little robust knowledge to offer to the world, or risk being rightfully ridiculed for promising something that your field doesn't deliver

>>1482785
>a field must contribute to technological progress to be useful

Prove it.

>>1482817
>a field doesn't have to have any usefulness to be useful

>>1482817
>>a field must contribute to technological progress to be useful

No, it must make predictions that can be proven wrong, otherwise its claims are utterly meaningless

File: 1459653779702.png (3KB, 469x447px)

3KB, 469x447px

>>1482817
A field must demonstrate value to be valuable (duh, by definition)

"technological progress" as the yield of new devices is valuable, by definition of "progress", as improvement upon new systems, artifices, or ideas.

For instance, the MRI and the iPod are valuable, because people will trade their labor-hours (valuable) for it as an instrument to play a part in enhancing their health and well-being (valuable).

If you can't produce something that's worthy of value-attribution, by improving peoples lives in some measurable capacity, how can you call it valuable?

File: quote-if-you-want-to-find-the-secrets-of-the-universe-think-in-terms-of-energy-frequency-and-nikola-tesla-43-76-81.jpg (75KB, 850x400px)

75KB, 850x400px

How important is the hypothesis in the scientific method?

How come on the internet no one believes anyone's theories to be true? Everyone gets shut down like they are stupid or something.

Also, why does everyone have a "degree" in who is right and who is wrong? Like, where are all these scientists and historians on the internet?

>>1482826
>>1482835
>>1482843
>le falsification meme

Most metaphysical systems say we are all One, or a reflection of a higher reality. this has a direct impact on my outlook on the world for the better. Ergo, metaphysics has value.

>>1482850
>Most metaphysical systems say we are all One, or a reflection of a higher reality. this has a direct impact on my outlook on the world for the better. Ergo, metaphysics has value.

And what would prove this wrong?

Because Christians are insufferable about trying different ideas even Crieasters

>>1482850
You can say that, but three non-metaphysicians can say the opposite, and the only way to resolve the dispute is to compare the value of each in external quantities.

For example, I could say that Taylor Swift is less valuable than Kanye West, because Taylor Swift causes me aggravation while Kanye has a direct impact on my outlook on the world for the better, but this opinion is not a fact or an accurate statement of external value. Kanye is worth 1/4 of Taysway, not even including his staggering multi-million dollar debts, so it's accurate to say that Taylor Swift's value is greater than Kanye West's.

>>1482877
Finding an object from a different reality that's in this one. A scientific account of existence that intuitively explains the qualitative without having to resort to some source Ideal realm.

>>1482888
>what is subjective value
>the only value is material/monetary

You're legitimately autistic

>>1482893
>Finding an object from a different reality that's in this one.

And how would you do that?

"Metaphysics is entirely valueless in this day and age," he said, reasoning from his own metaphysical conception.

>>1482908

And how does someone reason free of metaphysical conceptions?

>>1482897
How can you quantify subjective value without external, objective representations? Can I stick a "value needle" in your brain and get a reading to see how much you like Heidegger?

>>1482921
Wow it's almost as if... some value... is unquantifiable... and not reducible... to numbers on a meter... fedoras HATE him!!!

File: laughingjewess.jpg (27KB, 313x384px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 313x384px

>>1482947
>IT'S REAL IN MY MIND

>>1482921

Probably, one day.

>>1482947
>unquantifiable
>not reducible to numbers on a meter

Again, if you admit this, then why do you complain that people don't consider your feelyfeely system a true science?

The fedora meme has some basis in reality.

>>1482752

Too complex and profound

Many people have been brainwashed in narratives that cannot comprehend metaphysics

>>1482980
>metaphysics is a failed science

Read a book nigga read a book

>>1482958
>my love for my children can't be reduced to a number, guess it doesn't exist/there's no reason to ever talk about it!!!

CANT TOUCH IT IT ISNT THERE

>>1483025
>>metaphysics is a failed science

If nothing can prove its claims wrong, then it's not a science in the first place

>>my love for my children can't be reduced to a number, guess that means i'm not going to treat it like some field of science

fify. Also, stop it with the exclamation marks, they only make you look even more assmad

>>1483038
No one, absolutely no one, has claimed or attempted to formulate metaphysics as another field of science. You're a fucking retard

>shitty positivists and autists who aren't good at explaining the viewpoints strawmen each other: The thread;

I don't hate metaphysics but it's quite hard to even say what metaphysics even is. All the useful parts became science a long time ago.

>>1482752
It's fucking outdated

Imagine if someone just started talking about alchemy or astrology and expected to be taken seriously

>>1483097
> not taking Alchemy seriously
It is like you don't transmute your inner self by road of the cauda pavonis or something.

>>1483086
Metaphysics is a deductive investigation into the deep principles of reality, into what is fundamental vs. what is derived

>>1483097
>it's outdated
>le alchemy is retards attempting chemistry meme

lmao

>>1483057
>You're a fucking retard

This thread shows that you clearly are. You demand that people take metaphysics seriously, while you present us with nothing that would force anyone to take it seriously. All you do is present incoherent claims filled with undefined gibberish, or when pushed on the basic assumptions you make, you resort back to le epin fedora response. All you should yourself, through your own responses in this thread, is how immature people like you are and what a useless piece of shit activity metaphysics is

>>1483111
If alchemy isn't outdated name one significant modern alchemist. You can't.

>>1483116
>le gibberish
>le incoherent

The more and more I see complaining about someone's language then more ive come to realize they're just shallow plebs. There is literally nothing in this thread that can't be comprehended by a sharp middle schooler.

>>1483139

Again, putting 'le' in front of something doesn't invalidate it. I'm done with you. All you've done in this thread is present a strawman version of science as mechanical (which it isn't), and present 'metaphysics' (whatever the hell you even mean by it, you still haven't explained anything about it, why anyone should take it seriously as a method of thinking) as a 'solution' for problems that you've simply made up. You've also hurled insults at people who rightfully called you out on your bullshit, which further undermines any authority you could've had, if you had done even the slightest effort to work out the incoherent bullshit you call your system of ideas.

Then again, being a thinker also involves the recognition that you can be and often will be wrong about the ideas and descriptions of reality you propose, and you seem to utterly lack the capacity to do this. You can go back to pointless circle jerking of how utterly right you are about everything, and how everyone who disagrees with you wears an unfashionable hat and is therefore wrong. Bye

>>1482835

1 + 2 = 3

Can't be disproven (cause it's a non-empirical system that derives truth from it's axioms), therefore useless.

>>1482848

>How important is the hypothesis in the scientific method?

It's not at all. What a worthless meme.

>here let me color my entire observation process with a random prediction that I want to be right
>this bias surely will not negatively affect my results desu

fag science

>>1483273
> he doesn't know about modal arithmetic

>>1483209
You, or others like you, think metaphysics is a wannabe science, which confirms your ignorance on the topic. And then there's the other guy who thinks net worth is an objective measure of someone's "value". And then there's the other guy whose so ignorant of what metaphysics is (formulating a conception of reality as such) he thinks it can ever be "outdated".

Ad you think that counts as "being called out on my bullshit". Undergrads, everyone

File: slav_kek.jpg (7KB, 101x101px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 101x101px

>>1483299
>And then there's the other guy who thinks net worth is an objective measure of someone's "value"
You still haven't demonstrated how it isn't.

>>1483325
Haha, you actually think how much money someone has in the bank is an objective measure of that person's intrinsic value. Haha you think the value someone places on their family and friends is non-existent or unimportant, and we should restrict our statements about realy to numbers and measurements because everything else is subjective and since you're an autist subjectivity is icky. You, a grown ass man, believe this.

>>1483273

>What is modal arithmetic

Fag, read more, write less.

>>1482903

>finding microscopic organisms without a microscope

And how would you do that? Must be that they can't exist.

Ever think about the possibilities of technological advancement and the implications of those advancements for the sake of all human knowledge? You autist.

>>1482917

gee I wonder if that's even possible.

You barely understand what a logical system is, do you?

>>1483286
>>1483342
> back to read it

>>1483286
>>1483342

that's spelled modular arithmetic and it's a special snowflake numbers system like base 9001 logarithmic manifold division or calculus.

besides, I could just as easily regress to the assertion A = A (which cannot be disproven for the same fucking reason) and my critique of your position would still hold true.

>lol wat is deduction

>>1483338
Laughing doesn't make your point more valid
Do you not think that rich people have friends and family, or that they value their own subjective relations? I'm not saying you shouldn't love your keeds, but it's true that Taylor Swift is objectively worth more to society than Mrs. and Mr. John Q Public, specifically because Taylor Swift produces and adds more, quantifiable value to that society, which is measurable through currency.

File: pmif.png (559KB, 800x625px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 800x625px

>>1483368
> He doesn't know about paraconsistent logics

>>1482752
Metaphysics is fucking trash unless it has some sort of Esoteric use.

>>1483399

got me there senpai

I have thought about the logical system that reconciles the axioms (A = ~A) or (A + ~A) for a while now and I still don't understand how the fuck that works, only that it does for whatever reason.

My man help an anon out.

>>1483383
Look, not all value is quantifiable nor should its only measure be if it is a household name or not. You're an autist.

>>1483433

>not all value is currently quantifiable

fixd

>>1483119
Edward Elric [spoiler]:^)

>>1483458
>this autist actually believes were gonna be hooking up electrodes to people in the future and getting a measure of love in fucking scientific units

lmao

>>1483498

>getting a measure of love in fucking scientific units

fu dude it's literally bio-electrical chemistry.

but as regards explaining the actual qualitative experience clearly correlated with these simple chemical reactions and electrical fluxes in any materialistically causal sense I cannot speak with any meaningful scientific authority.

There is no fucking reason why we as biological machines should have an "prior internal experience", but we do anyways.

The fact that the materialistic causal chain cannot extend to the internal life suggests that in fact all material causal effect is derived instead from an all pervasive consciousness made obscure by a limited temporal fixation. A looking glass or a lens if you will.

>>1483535
I agree completely. of course you can measure for an inherent disposition towards x according to genetic/environmental factors but trying to describe what is essentially a qualitative feeling in quantitative terms is trying to build a bridge across a very wife philosophical chasm.

I also believe consciousness in humans is a scaling down or "myopization" of an infinite source consciousness. Congrats, that's metaphysics.

>>1482752
because Positivism is the dominant philosophical school and Scientists have usurped priests as the ones who get to say which philosophies are "allowed" or not.

not to mention hyper-materialism fits with the capitalist model

>>1482843
>A field must demonstrate value to be valuable
why this obsession with value?
its the utilitarian mindset when most of the greatest things humanity has developed have very little "social" value.

>>1483629
>because Positivism is the dominant philosophical school and Scientists have usurped priests as the ones who get to say which philosophies are "allowed" or not.

Such a childish little shot.

Try posting on the chanz from a computer that was prayed into existence by priests.

The reason why some fedoras hate metaphysics is because it contains the word physics, and a number of metaphysical theories claim to be the true principle on the way the physical world works.

It's also a circlejerk because there's very little application, often times it doesn't even have entertainment value, and the truth of the matter is someone must value it enough to put food on the table for it to exist.

>>1483789

you already are.

the internet is literally Satans hugbox.

Ever consider the reason as to why daemons are central to a computer's correct operation?

You know how there are literally demons inside your computer? They're inside your head now too.

The infernal machine works ever on.

>>1483789
>positivism gave us computers

lmfao

>>1483843

Moved back from having a pop at scientists and calling them priests to sullenly squeaking about "positivism" I see.

>>1483822

lol :-)

>>1483789
>scientific positivism is the cause, not the effect of scientific progress

>you can't consider positivism useful in some fields and not others

Holy shit the scientism ITT

>>1483789
*tips fedora*

>>1482835
Lrn 2 logic fgt

>>1483873

The point is, anon, that scientific progress isn't caused by praying and your computer ain't powered by bibles.

That's going to remain true no matter how hard you try to set up strawmen with greentext.

>>1483883

And it's going to remain true no matter how hard you burst into tears about it.

>>1483905

>metaphysics is religion

le strawman

>>1483905
The goal of metaphysics is not technological progress. You are legitimately autistic

>>1483913

I didn't say metaphysics is religion. So yeah, another strawman.

>>1483937

retard

>>1483934

I specifically replied to someone claiming scientists were exactly the same as priests.

I'm not sure where all this shitposting is coming from.

>>1483941

>hurr

No, you.

>>1483942
Priests as in, those who claim to be the keepers of truth and lord it over the masses, which is exactly what you're doing in this thread you 'tismo

>>1483963
>Priests as in, those who claim to be the keepers of truth and lord it over the masses

This is just back to childishness again.

I'm not even sure what to make of this level of petulence or, frankly, pure imagination.

I hardly think scientists are some "global elite lording it over the masses".

>>1483990
Look, we're talking about a very specific subset of the pop sci crowd that thinks science is the One Truth, obviously not everyone else is like that

Metaphysics is nonfalsifiable.
Metaphysics cannot be demonstrated scientifically.
Metaphysics is non-empirical.

But that's not the end of the argument.

Math, like metaphysics, is also nonfalsifiable. Just the same as art, aesthetics, music, ethics, and morality.

^ So don't play the hypocrite. You must abandon these also on the same grounds to remain intellectually honest.

But wait, there's more! Science itself cannot be proven or demonstrated scientifically. If you peel the layer back even further, you find that falsificationism is philosophy of science, and not what scientists "do" per se.

Look even further down the rabbit hole, and you find that falsificationism was an ad hoc attempt to save logical positivism/verificationism. IOW, the Vienna Circle wanted to control how science was done and establish a universal scientific method.

That has failed. Read Paul Feyerabend for more on this.

So what's the conclusion? Science itself is ever subject to doubt, and that's because of science depending on falsificationism, which in-turn is a philosophy subject to doubt.

Hence, the dogma of scientism is exposed. Scientism is not science. Science is simply what scientists do, and no true innovator follows the traditions and status quo of past dogma. In order to truly innovate, one must break with all prior laws, rules, and dogma.

>>1483996
>Look, we're talking about a very specific subset of the pop sci crowd that thinks science is the One Truth, obviously not everyone else is like that

Actually I was talking about one specific poster that I replied to that claimed scientists and priests were the same thing.

>>1483990
>I hardly think scientists are some "global elite lording it over the masses".

You're confusing science education with professional (applied) science in the real world. I would imagine a lot of graduates become disillusioned as a result.

Current science education is trying to promote "science" commercially; make it cool enough for more kids to get into as a profession. The problem here is that it is continually promoted in the media as a "The One Truth" as such. As-if empiricism had no flaws.

There are even graduates who assume this as well. So yes, your opponent has a valid point. Have you ever looked into the classical problem of induction? Hint: We never settled it; we're just ignoring it.

>>1484013

>In order to truly innovate, one must break with all prior laws, rules, and dogma.

lol

>>1483990

cringe

>>1484022
> Actually I was talking about one specific poster that I replied to that claimed scientists and priests were the same thing

Like Bill Nye or Neil Degrasse Tyson? Sure, they would totally deny the title of "priest," but in the same breath behave the same way. Anyone who doesn't agree with them has committed a heresy against science. You're not even allowed to use the term "scientism," because to them such a distinction doesn't exist.

Hence, an ivory-tower dogma that is no different from the Roman Catholic Church. They have looked into the proverbial abyss and become the very monsters they tried to fight.

>>1484038

http://homes4her.blogspot.com/2013/07/logical-fallacy-appeal-to-ridicule.html

Got anything better?

>>1484058
>muh fallacies

Just have a discussion like a normal being ya tismo-tron

>>1484037
>Have you ever looked into the classical problem of induction?

Of course I have.

Hint: the various attempts to solve it haven't involved "pulling shit out of your arsehole" and then ranting about "everything that disagrees with me is the media pushing the One Truth".

Second Hint: the philosophy of science has come much closer to solving the problem of induction than the philosophy of "making up stuff" has. See Popper.

>>1484058

Yeah but if all innovators break all prior laws, rules, and dogma, how do innovators innovate innovation? '

If innovators have to break all prior laws, rules, and dogma every time they innovate to be innovators, how do they break the rule that they have to break all prior laws, rules, and dogma?

They can't silly, it's impossible. You've simply misapplied a universal qualifier.

>>1484052
>>1484043

*rolls eyes*

>>1484071

Hint: The philosophy of science is a derived metaphysical system that makes statements about reality.

>>1484086

Hint: talking about the origins of something is entirely fallacious as an argument.

>>1483345
You gonna invent that thing with metaphysics, buddy?

>>1484096

Metaphysicians invented the scientific method over the course of a few centuries.

>>1482761
And the stupid award goes to anon

>>1484111

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

>>1483279
Except hypotheses are typically evaluated by more than just the tester
And double blind tests exist.
Also statistical analysis exists.

Hypothesis is fundamental to the scientific method.
If you don't have a hypothesis then you can't prove yourself right and you can't be proven wrong depending on the context and your attitude towards failure.

>>1484070
>Just have a discussion like a normal being ya tismo-tron

No-no, you don't get to "have a discussion" and make up your own rules, you cheating fucktard.

See how it works?

>>1484071
>the various attempts to solve it haven't involved "pulling shit out of your arsehole" and then ranting about "everything that disagrees with me is the media pushing the One Truth"

Yet you're diverting away from addressing the (failed) attempts to solve it.

>the philosophy of science has come much closer to solving the problem of induction than the philosophy of "making up stuff" has. See Popper.

Popper failed. See Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerabend.

Time to get off the pseudointellectual crack now.

>>1484079
No, because the very definition of innovation is, "to make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products."

And you're not demonstrating how I've misapplied it. You're just asserting that I did.

>>1484080
Yet still unable to argue against it.

>>1484086
>The philosophy of science is [an arbitrarily] derived metaphysical system [that began with the Vienna Circle] that makes statements about reality [as metaphysical construct].

Fixed.

Or maybe you haven't yet been weaned from your beloved Professor's teat.

>>1484111
^ This anon is correct.

The cult of scientism can suck it.

>>1484225
It's not assserting that "therefore he's right" or wrong, but it does point out that method was pure invention. You're going to have to deal with that. Also, you're going to have to argue that somehow inventing a method that failed and was revised several times with even more failures constitutes "scientific law" in and of itself.

IOW, you must carry burden of proof for skepticism to the assertion that there is a "The Universal Scientific Method" dogma, law, argybarg.

Yes, you.

>>1484248
>Hypothesis is fundamental to the scientific method.

In waht order? Some textbooks have it at the beginning. Others have it later on down the line.

How about dealing with the utter shock that it was all inconsistent and may have all been a fraud to begin with?

Most people don't understand it, and the concept itself has never really been sufficiently defined.

Because women are mundane, shallow, retarded, fixated on the third density sphere and very vocal all at the same time

There's a reason most gnosticists are males

File: petricek.jpg (22KB, 231x200px)

22KB, 231x200px

>>1484334
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzD1O_gastA

>It is clear, then, that the idea of a fixed method, or of a fixed theory or rationality, rests on too naive a view of man and his social surroundings. To those who look at the rich material provided by history, and who are not intent on impoverishing it in order to please their lower instincts, their craving for intellectual security in the form of clarity, precision, "objectivity", "truth", it will become clear that there is only one principle that can be defended under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. It is the principle: anything goes. -Paul Feyerabend

>fedora retard watches youtube video about the invention of a new vibrating anal sex toy
>goes on 4chan to post how metaphysics isnt useful

Cant we just stop having these moronic threads? God damn.

Atheists you know when you are talking to a creationist and he throws silly anchronistic ideas at you that are absolutly moronic and are a result of his ignorance?
And you just cant bare it cause he has an entire system of retarded bullshit assumptions that you have to untangle to even begin coming to some common ground?
This creationist is you who are amking these bullshit threads.

File: Sophia.jpg (26KB, 300x450px)

26KB, 300x450px

>>1484417
>most gnosticists are males

Which is ironic given our focus on the divine feminine.

File: ll.jpg (68KB, 630x400px)

68KB, 630x400px

>>1482752
There isn't, really. This thread may have been relevant in the 30s and 40s, but today metaphysics and more specifically ontology flourishes in the exact place where you probably wouldn't expect to find it: analytic philosophy. I think everyone here can agree that metaphysics is a highly speculative enterprise, but does that invalidate its problems? Are they not substantive? The fact of the matter is that physics and metaphysics often have bearing on the other and are not diametrically opposed. Metaphysical problems are alive and well in the philosophy of physics, analytic philosophy, and so on. An argument could be made perhaps that the problems it deals with have no bearing on our everyday reality and that consequently they are not of interest, but that is a subjective appraisal and nothing more.

>>1484997
But metaphysics is important precisely because it does have a baring on our everyday lives. It is how we see the world. It is how scientists interpret their results and structure their world view into language.
You can present mathematical functions anf feed them into a machine to get the right size of material to build your X item but for people to grasp the world in which they live we must use natural language.

File: m.png (39KB, 467x190px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 467x190px

>>1485018
I don't exactly disagree with you, I was referring more to the fact that detractors often argue that we don't "need" to interpret our findings, or launch sustained inquiries into the first principles that underlie ultimate reality because they serve no instrumental purpose. This is an attitude that continues to pervade certain circles in the sciences and is particularly damaging to aspiring young physicists and philosophers who are interested in doing more then "shut up and calculate". See pic

>>1482752

Because it is completely unfalsifiable and the criteria used to judge it are another unfalsifiable area of debate. The criteria used to find the criteria is another area of debate wholely reliant on unfalsifiable arguments. Ad infinitum.

Despite all the pseudo intellectuals in here, no, "duh common man" aint keepin da good philosophers down. Philosopher engage in deductions based on unfalfifiable axioms in a way that ranks them based on self promotion and posturing. They attack anyone in the outgroup who dares to assert non academia endorsed unfalsifiable axioms.