>Finish reading a Metaphysics introduction book. >Learn

File: 41NEDTGN94L.jpg (24KB, 312x475px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 312x475px

*teleports behind you*

>>9859997
>none of the theories can be explained and are easily disputed
A metaphysical theory can be neither proven nor disputed, hence it is metaphysical. In addition: no scientific theory can be proven or disputed; a hypothesis is always a hypothesis, never a definite proof. To conclude with a question and an attempt of an answer: What is then the difference between a metaphysical and scientific theory? My answer would be that the only criterion to distinguish between science and metaphysics is how useful the theory is, useful in terms of how well it predicts.

One more remark: it is beyond depressing to accept that no theory can be definitely proven.

>>9860028
>In addition: no scientific theory can be proven or disputed; a hypothesis is always a hypothesis, never a definite proof.
Yes it can, we believe in germ theory etc for a reason other than just "it be like it is". If our medical practitioners etc don't wash their hands before performing surgery, countless of people will die as a result. This is proven and testable, this says something about the reality which we inhabit (me and everyone else anyway if you're going to start denying reality). Likewise, you can disprove theories by presenting evidence that's completely incompatible with them being true, here's a list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

>>9860028
Also hypothesis =/= theory, you seem to be using them interchangeably. Brush up on your basic vocab.

>>9860049
>if our medical practicioners don't wash their hands before performing surgery countless people wil die
This cannot be proven. You are working with the assumption of causality, and no causal relationship can be proven. We do indeed believe that there is a causal relationship in the example you've mentioned, but there is no definite proof.
>>9860051
Completely irrelevant post, it's almost as if you deliberately refuse to understand what I'm saying because it shatters your illusions.

>>9860072
>but there is no definite proof.
Nobody cares about "definite proof" and this isn't what we mean by proof. We mean sufficiently proven, generally within a 95% confidence interval or some other high likeliness like that.


>>9860072
>Completely irrelevant post, it's almost as if you deliberately refuse to understand what I'm saying because it shatters your illusions.
Your not understanding what words mean and how to use them doesn't shatter shit.

Nobody cares about 100% accuracy, 99.99% is good enough for the vast majority of us. Get over it.

Shove your definite proof up your ass

>>9860083
>you don't understand what words (theory and hypothesis) mean
You didn't understand my post. A theory consists of hypotheses.

>nobody cares about definite proof
Top kek. Doesn't seem like you're familiar with philosophy.

>>9860049
It's funny that the people who say 'science gives us definite answers' aren't scientists themselves. If you actually read science journals or whatever, they're a lot more careful with their wording. Proofs aren't definite, and I bet there used to be a lot of people saying those superseded scientific theories were definite.

>>9860093
>Top kek. Doesn't seem like you're familiar with philosophy.
Top kek, nobody cares about them either when it comes to our understanding of the world, this isn't the 1800s or ancient Greece, pal

>>9860094
Yup, it's exactly this. We don't need "definite proof" to know that taking a cyanide capsule will mean a quite certain death.

>>9860003
made me laugh hard than it should have.

>>9860096
>we don't need definite proof when it comes to understanding of our world
You couldn't be more wrong. Your anti-intellectual attitude is disgusting. We don't need definite proof when it comes to our everyday endeavors, but if we want to truly understand our world then the notion of definite proof is all but irrelevant.

>>9860096
Scientism is a philosophy, it just stumbles into holding the positions it does more blindly than any religion ever did.

>>9860113
>We don't need definite proof when it comes to our everyday endeavors
>but if we want to truly understand our world
>to truly understand
Yes, for that we don't need definite proof. Unless you mean a subjetive understanding of our world, one that can be shared but ignored.

File: ARCA_NOE[1].jpg (69KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x480px

>>9860511
>more blindly than any religion ever did.
I'm sure it does

>>9860869
Metaphysical positions.

>>9860869
Oh, so it is a stupid beaner with a limited English that is doing these posts. No surprise

Knowledge is a funny thing.
People think we have knowledge of nature, but really to the trained intellect, it is mere potentialities and their likelihood.
Metaphysics are no different than empiricism in this regard.

>>9860511
will /lit/ever get bored of pretending to dig religion to troll other posters?

>>9860962

No.
Think about it this way - you fedora fags were so insufferable that you actually drove people into being religious in 2017.
You had like a five year window to make your mark and this is the result.

>>9860990
>implying i'm scientistic fedoratard