metic

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.

It would be nice if Kbin had a “local” sort option like Lemmy does.

Edit: The option does exist, but it’s in a completely different spot: https://kbin.social/m/kbin/t/79735/How-often-do-you-turn-federation-off#comments

Kebin is too similar to Kbin. Kibby or Bink is different enough.

I’m also Buddhist-ish. I have done zazen for many years. I have taken some Vajrayana empowerments. And I like to study Buddhist philosophy. Yet I am not really convinced about Buddhist soteriology, so I can’t earnestly take refuge.

I’m weary of people who make this mistake.

My aunt still does separate loads for reds+yellows and blues+greens. Boomers don’t know dyes and detergents have come a long way in the last few decades.

Wasn’t that debunked a long time ago?

That’s what you get for selling out to Mews Corp.