DebateReligion

91 readers

1 users here now

A place to discuss and debate religion

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

solxyz

No metaphysical model is more convincing than any other (kbin.social)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [email protected] to c/debatereligion

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Over the history of philosophy and religion numerous works of metaphysical speculation have been written. Many of these metaphysical models are mutually exclusive. This bewildering variety of metaphysics naturally induces a skepticism of all metaphysical systems. No particular metaphysics can be be proven empirically. Metaphysicians must recourse to either theophany or reasoning; in practice usually a combination of the two. Others cannot access the same theophany or may dispute their logic.

Materialism cannot escape this skepticism. Materialism (or physicalism) is the current prestige metaphysics in the modern world, but it has not earned this position on the basis of its veracity. Science as the study of physical or social phenomena, does not concern itself with non-physical phenomena. It is instrumentally materialist, regardless of the individual scientist’s metaphysical views. Although science uses materialism as a working assumption, it does not and cannot attempt to prove it, nor any other metaphysical model. The prestige materialism currently enjoys is a result of people mistaking this instrumentality for veracity.

top 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] afraid_of_zombies2 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wrote a reply and it vanished. From memory

Your first error is substitution. You are demanding that the contextualization that other people are claiming is the thing itself. Models exist because of the facts, facts don't exist because of the models. The idea that the scientific method depends on the assumption of materialism is a model, one that is not supported by the facts.

Humans, and really all known critters do not think first and then do. They do and then they think, sometimes. You knew how to eat long before you knew that you had to eat and long long before you learned why you have to eat. Effectively all the critters that have ever existed never once considered these two questions. We are rounding error.

The history of science is no different, just more extreme. We learned the basics of experimentation, repeatedability, measurement, peer-review whole centuries before anyone tried to put the process into context. Of course people like Kuhn and Popper failed completely but hey it's not like philosophy learns from it's mistakes.

You assume that materialism assumption is required to perform science is absurd as demanding that fish explain hydrodynamics before they are allowed to swim. The fish were swimming fine for billions of years before a human came around and modeled it.

Second, you are partially correct. Materialism is accepted because the data supports it. Not because it has to be prime ultimate truth. You are only partially correct because a. you do not advance a workable alternative and b. you mixup ultimate truth for tentative truth. What should humans do exactly? Not accept the best model for the data that we have until a better one comes around? And yes the belief in materialism is tentatively true. New evidence could disprove it. Which again, what would the alternative be? Everything is tentatively true, everything is subject to correction one day.

This is why Theology and Philosophy have always been stuck. It doesn't correct old mistakes and it demands an unreasonable burden to know anything.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wrote a reply and it vanished. From memory

Posting has been buggy on Lemmy.world the past few days so it’s better to compose in another program/ app and then copy it over.

Models exist because of the facts, facts don’t exist because of the models.

An epistemology must be established before something can be established as a fact. Epistemology precedes metaphysics. A given approach or model establishes first what it considers valid means of knowing. Science of necessity limits itself to empiricism and logic. This is what makes its materialism instrumental. It is focused on epistemology and methodology and sets aside metaphysical matters.

Humans, and really all known critters do not think first and then do. They do and then they think, sometimes. You knew how to eat long before you knew that you had to eat and long long before you learned why you have to eat. Effectively all the critters that have ever existed never once considered these two questions. We are rounding error.

Sure, organisms don’t need sophisticated cognition to survive. How is this relevant to the matter at hand?

You assume that materialism assumption is required to perform science is absurd as demanding that fish explain hydrodynamics before they are allowed to swim. The fish were swimming fine for billions of years before a human came around and modeled it.

First, this metaphor doesn’t work. Science proper is only a few hundred years old. That is the reverse of an organism being well-adapted to its environment.

Second, as I said before, methods can be shown to be effective regardless of the conceptual framework the person using them. An individual scientist’s metaphysical views are irrelevant to the scientific process. It is the exclusive focus on matter that I am calling “instrumental materialism”. It is this very reification of instrumental materialism into metaphysical materialism which I am critiquing.

Second, you are partially correct. Materialism is accepted because the data supports it.

This is the opposite of what I’m saying. There are no data to prove any metaphysical claim, materialist or otherwise. Science can’t make metaphysical truth claims by design.

you do not advance a workable alternative

That’s the whole point I’m trying to make here. There is no objective way to preference any particular metaphysical view. The best we can do is claim a subjective, gut or faith-based claim. I’d be very much interested if someone could refute this.

you mixup ultimate truth for tentative truth.

I’m coming from a Pyrrhonian perspective, so I tend to treat all truth claims as tentative.

Of course people like Kuhn and Popper failed completely but hey it’s not like philosophy learns from it’s mistakes.

This is why Theology and Philosophy have always been stuck. It doesn’t correct old mistakes and it demands an unreasonable burden to know anything.

Now there are some spicy takes. Seems to imply that science is separable from philosophy.

[–] afraid_of_zombies2 0 points 2 years ago

An epistemology must be established before something can be established as a fact.

Says who? Show me a per reviewed study that backs up this claim.

. A given approach or model establishes first what it considers valid means of knowing.

Again you have it backwards. We learn first and then put into context later. This is how ity has worked in practice.

Sure, organisms don’t need sophisticated cognition to survive. How is this relevant to the matter at hand?

It is relevant because you keep trying to build a chain from very abstract to concretes when again you have it backwards. Humanity didn't develop tensors, newton's laws, rotational dynamics, and then the wheel. You keep asserting that it works a way that doesn't reflect how it did work.

This is the opposite of what I’m saying. There are no data to prove any metaphysical claim, materialist or otherwise. Science can’t make metaphysical truth claims by design.

Shrug. Maybe they aren't any to make? I can't really make any claims about actual unicorns for a reason.

There is no objective way to preference any particular metaphysical view. The best we can do is claim a subjective, gut or faith-based claim. I’d be very much interested if someone could refute this.

Only because you defined it to be impossible. You can't really get worked up about no five sided triangles hanging around. It's interesting you did it this way. Back when I took a philosophy 101 course they talked about metaphysics being things like event and processes vs particulars. To me it was just model building with words instead of math. Seemed like you could evaluate that. But you have a different view than I was taught.

Now there are some spicy takes. Seems to imply that science is separable from philosophy.

They are? What is confusing? Art appreciation is not fundamentals of baseball. There could be some overlap but they are still separate.