Wednesday, April 26, 2017

The Nature of Truth

Photobucket
the Knight and friends dance into death and eternity in Bergman's
greatest film,The Seventh Seal 

A poster on Cadre blog says that Christianity screwed up truth and spoiled the rich ancient heritage in modernity, as though Christianity is the historical newcomer and modernity has an ancient heritage,

Paplinton:
The word 'truth' and its underlying concept has been so wantonly cheapened over the centuries by the christian experience as to render it meaningless. The only thing we can say is certain about religion, christianity being no exception, is as Prof David Eller, renowned anthropologist eruditely explains, "Religion is essentially social, in both senses of the word. It is an activity that humans do together; it is created, maintained, and perpetuated by human group behaviour. It is also social in the sense that it extends that sociality beyond the human world, to a (putative) realm of non-human agents who also interact with us socially." Any every religion exhibits the very same pathologies based on superstition and ignorance of how the mind works. Its been a tough nut to crack but thankfully science is slowly but inexorably shining a light into those shadowed recesses.So the question about the "Trooth™" of christianity as the 'one and only true religion', or any of the thousands of extinct and extant religions that make the identical claim, is simply enculturated mumbo-jumbo.[1]

He not only spells truth differently but gives it a registered trade mark; nothing could be more appropriate because the modern denuded concept of truth replacing the real idea of truth is a product of 1DM [2] and thus the simulacra  truth of the closed realm of discourse (the product of regicide everything to consuming and producing). In his mind he thinks the issue is between fact based empirical science and pretend made up unreliability Christianity, he;s a dupe. He;s duped into  that false dichotomy. The scientific model that seems so factual is not factual at all it's the streaming data. The data stream is relative and vanishing based upon  the constantly shifting sands of surface level things. The mere existence of the physical is the end of the line for the stream of  data. There can be no unseen  reality there. Of course there is one, the subatomic level but that;s just part of the inconsistency of ideology. That unseen reality plays a crucial role in scientific theory so it;s necessary but spirit doesn't so it has go.

The Christian ideal of truth is not made up.It's the concept of unseen reality that forms the basis of reality (like the subatomic level). It is unchaining,timeless, the basis of all that is. That is the description of god, In St. Augustine's view God = truth.

 Augustine, after he had experienced all the implications of ancient skepticism, gave a classical answer to the problem of the two absolutes: they coincide in the nature of truth. Veritas is presupposed in ever philosophical argument; and veritas is God. You cannot deny truth as such because you could do it only in the name of truth, thus establishing truth. And if you establish truth you affirm God. “Where I have found the truth there I have found my God, the truth itself,” Augustine says. The question of the two Ultimates is solved in such a way that the religious Ultimate is presupposed in every philosophical question, including the question of God. God is the presupposition of the question of God. This is the ontological solution of the problem of the philosophy of religion. God can never be reached if he is the object of a question and not its basis.[3]

In the ideology of scientism God must necessarily be seen as "made up"and any unseen  realm not subatomic has to be made up because if surface level of relativity is all there is then there can be no unseen. So the data stream version of truth is based upon ideology of scientism, at least the science oriented version of it is.I still see it as a creature of post human era (circa 1980) and thus akin to 'Trumpism and alt truth. So even tough fundamentalism calls itself "Christian" it has forsaken the Christian conception truth and is really just another product of the same forces that produced new atheism.

Lest there be any doubt that Paplinton is in the scientism way look at his answer to my comment:
"The overwhelming evidence suggests an explanation for why christianity [and all religions for that matter] persists is not that its narrative is true per se but that it is an epiphenomenal by-product of our need to make sense of the genetic and evolutionary drivers for human behavior in the absence of modern scientific knowledge and understanding two thousand years ago that we now are so thankfully privy to." So he has to destroy the concept of truth,make sure is no concept of a grander context in which material reality plays out amid unchanging eternal  verities,it has to be relative and made up. It's just epi-phenomenal not even a real phenomenon. It;s based upon the need to explaimn things,which is the only motive for any belief if scientism is your only mode of thought. Because it emulates  science.

His sense of history is totally distorted, The Christian concept is closer to teh Greek, having borrowed from it. The modern scientism view narrowed from the Christian. Physicist Paul Davies recognizes that modern enlightenment conceits of laws of physics are merely the residue of the God concept with the personality taken out, French philosphes just retained the powers of God with no will to motivate them.[4] The meta-narrative of scinentisms's ideology would have us believe that only Christianity is an attempt to understand and make sense but the empirical data stream of science is facts and the truth and the true explanation. In reality it is it just another meta-narrative with a different rational but still one that attempts to understand what is beyond its understanding.

Notice he has the social scientist pronounce religion just a social institution. Like that proves that's all it is. But the social sciences (founded largely by Auguste Comte) working out of the early dialectical materialist circles of  Saimt-Simon, Fuerbach, and Marx were set in the path of atheist critique from the beginning,

Classical sociological theories are theories of great scope and ambition that either were created in Europe between the early 1800s and the early 1900s or have their roots in the culture of that period. The work of such classical sociological theorists as Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and Vilfredo Pareto was important in its time and played a central role in the subsequent development of sociology. Additionally, the ideas of these theorists continue to be relevant to sociological theory today, because contemporary sociologists read them. They have become classics because they have a wide range of application and deal with centrally important social issues. [5]
Many of those thinkers made a big thing of atheism. I was a sociology major,l competed the whole major, my BA is in sinology and communication. I got out of the field because its disregard of any view other than its grinding number crunching reductionist meta-narrative.


Photobucket

Data stream




Most modern Theologians base their view of truth upon the correspondence theory, true of Tillich in particular.

 [The idea]... that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified). This basic idea has been expressed in many ways, giving rise to an extended family of theories and, more often, theory sketches. Members of the family employ various concepts for the relevant relation (correspondence, conformity, congruence, agreement, accordance, copying, picturing, signification, representation, reference, satisfaction) and/or various concepts for the relevant portion of reality (facts, states of affairs, conditions, situations, events, objects, sequences of objects, sets, properties, tropes). The resulting multiplicity of versions and reformulations of the theory is due to a blend of substantive and terminological differences.
The correspondence theory of truth is often associated with metaphysical realism. Its traditional competitors, pragmatist, as well as coherentist, verificationist, and other epistemic theories of truth, are often associated with idealism, anti-realism, or relativism. In recent years, these traditional competitors have been virtually replaced (at least from publication-space) by deflationary theories of truth and, to a lesser extent, by the identity theory (note that these new competitors are typically notassociated  with anti-realism). [6]
So my notion of truth understands the data stream of science in terms of understanding the physical world but it cant communicate any reality beyond the surface which is empirical existence. Truth with a capital "T" i that which is and it includes  eternal necessary being that can neither cease nor fail to be.It is beyond our understanding.

I close with an explanation of my graphic, Why do I use a scene from the Seventh Seal? BTW the mast head photo is also from the same film, the knight plays chess with death, After doing so he finally looses and he and his friends dance off into death symbolic of dying of black pleasure. Art beats science it's the perfect medium to transmit religious tough into the modern world. It's "made up" but not false.It's the symbol of a truth beyond our understanding that has to be mediated through metaphor, science is made  phony when scientism pretends it can go beyond itself and explain the transcendent, that really means explicate it away.

we all play chess with death, we are all going to die,we do not know what's over the hill.But we know there is truth over the hill.

Sources 


[1] Paplinton, "If Christianity were True Would You Become a Christian?" Comment section, Cadre Comments.(April 22) 2017 blog. URL"
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/04/if-christianity-were-true-would-you.html?showComment=1493165487346#c247906903880029801
(accessed April 26,2017)

[2] 1DM is "one-Dimensional Man" Herbert Marcue's concept marking the decline of Western civilization and the ultimate triumph of capitalistic market forces in producing a tantalized system of obedience. It was the ultimate in capitalism  induced false consciousness arresting class struggle. The workers get hooked on false needs, they don't perceive their need to rebel

see Marcuse: Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, 12.

[3] Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture, New York: Oxford University press,1964 12-13.

[4] Paul Davies, “Physics and The Mind of God: the Templeton Prize Address,” First Things, August 1995, on line version URL:https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 accessed Nov 25, 2016

[5] Paul Rtzer and Douglas J.Goodman, Classical Sociological Theory, New York: McGraw Hill 4th edition, 79.

[6] Marian David,, "The Correspondence Theory of Truth", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/truth-correspondence/>.
First published Fri May 10, 2002; substantive revision Thu May 28, 2015



29 comments:

Anonymous said...

JH: He not only spells truth differently but gives it a registered trade mark; nothing could be more appropriate because the modern denuded concept of truth replacing the real idea of truth is a product of 1DM [2] and thus the simulacra truth of the closed realm of discourse (the product of regicide everything to consuming and producing). In his mind he thinks the issue is between fact based empirical science and pretend made up unreliability Christianity, he;s a dupe.

He styled truth like that to show that what Christianity is peddling is its own brand of the truth, rather than what is actually true.

Science is empirically-based, and so can - tentatively - claim to be truth-based. Christianity is not empirical, as is abundantly made clear by the way Christians use "empirical" as though it is a bad thing.

JH: That unseen reality plays a crucial role in scientific theory so it;s necessary but spirit doesn't so it has go.

That unseen reality of the sub-atomic world is well-supported by evidence. The spirit world is not. The former is science, the latter is superstition.

JH: The Christian ideal of truth is not made up.It's the concept of unseen reality that forms the basis of reality (like the subatomic level). It is unchaining,timeless, the basis of all that is. That is the description of god, In St. Augustine's view God = truth.

It is, however, based on the flimsiest of evidence, which, to the impartial observer implies that we can only have very limited confidence that it is actually true.

JH: In the ideology of scientism God must necessarily be seen as "made up"and any unseen realm not subatomic has to be made up because if surface level of relativity is all there is then there can be no unseen.

God is considered poorly supported because of the lack of empirical evidence. Sub-atomic particles are considered well-supported because of the very good evidence. It is not rocket science.

JH: The modern scientism view narrowed from the Christian. Physicist Paul Davies recognizes that modern enlightenment conceits of laws of physics are merely the residue of the God concept with the personality taken out,

That may be historically when the laws came from, but the reason the laws are accepted today is because of the great evidence supporting them. That evidence is lacking for God.

JH: So my notion of truth understands the data stream of science in terms of understanding the physical world but it cant communicate any reality beyond the surface which is empirical existence.

Great, so you label science a "data stream". So what? It is still very well supported by evidence, and it is still the case that Christianity is not. Yes, science is limited, and we have discussed that before. That does not make it not true.

JH: Truth with a capital "T" i that which is and it includes eternal necessary being that can neither cease nor fail to be.It is beyond our understanding.

Interesting opinion. But it is just opinion, until you have evidence to support it. It might be the Truth, it might not. Without evidence we cannot tell.

Pix

Joe Hinman said...


1 – 1 of 1
Anonymous Anonymous said...
JH: He not only spells truth differently but gives it a registered trade mark; nothing could be more appropriate because the modern denuded concept of truth replacing the real idea of truth is a product of 1DM [2] and thus the simulacra truth of the closed realm of discourse (the product of regicide everything to consuming and producing). In his mind he thinks the issue is between fact based empirical science and pretend made up unreliability Christianity, he;s a dupe.

He styled truth like that to show that what Christianity is peddling is its own brand of the truth, rather than what is actually true.

yes i know that but so is his,

Science is empirically-based, and so can - tentatively - claim to be truth-based. Christianity is not empirical, as is abundantly made clear by the way Christians use "empirical" as though it is a bad thing.

yes Christianity is empirical. one experiences God first hand,

JH: That unseen reality plays a crucial role in scientific theory so it;s necessary but spirit doesn't so it has go.

That unseen reality of the sub-atomic world is well-supported by evidence. The spirit world is not. The former is science, the latter is superstition.


no actually it;snot and it;s really disingenuous of you when you must know better,l there is no empirical observation of sub atomic particles,.it's all about inferring the existence of particles from the actions of other particles and how it fits with theory,by that same stnadard,how it fits, christian unseen realm is just as well supported

JH: The Christian ideal of truth is not made up.It's the concept of unseen reality that forms the basis of reality (like the subatomic level). It is unchaining,timeless, the basis of all that is. That is the description of god, In St. Augustine's view God = truth.

It is, however, based on the flimsiest of evidence, which, to the impartial observer implies that we can only have very limited confidence that it is actually true.

200 studies is a lot more certain than most things in science,Air bags were proven by only four studies.air pollution was Provence harmful by one study, religion is not science no reason why it has to be. metaphysics is a lot complicated than science,
must because not as provable in a concrete way doesn't,make it indvalid.,



JH: In the ideology of scientism God must necessarily be seen as "made up"and any unseen realm not subatomic has to be made up because if surface level of relativity is all there is then there can be no unseen.

God is considered poorly supported because of the lack of empirical evidence. Sub-atomic particles are considered well-supported because of the very good evidence. It is not rocket science.

the idea of comparing God to ordinary empirical objects is purely stupid. that's like expecting to prove the unified field through some first grade science experimenter, then saying I put the balloon in the fridge and got it cold and I did't see the unified field so there isn't one,

Joe Hinman said...

JH: The modern scientism view narrowed from the Christian. Physicist Paul Davies recognizes that modern enlightenment conceits of laws of physics are merely the residue of the God concept with the personality taken out,

That may be historically when the laws came from, but the reason the laws are accepted today is because of the great evidence supporting them. That evidence is lacking for God.

they are not accepted today there is no evidence supporting them that's one of the major laughable things about the scientistic position, the former sense that science is truth is falling apart. Now they demoted laws from laws to mere descriptions. now they are trying to find alternatives to calling them laws that stuff is becoming a lot more alterable than you think. Look no one is talking about repairmen science with God. These two different magistreia there;' no competition, they don't do the same things,


JH: So my notion of truth understands the data stream of science in terms of understanding the physical world but it cant communicate any reality beyond the surface which is empirical existence.

Great, so you label science a "data stream". So what? It is still very well supported by evidence, and it is still the case that Christianity is not. Yes, science is limited, and we have discussed that before. That does not make it not true.

science produces a stream of data but I'm using that as a metaphor or the model of truth the reductionist are using not all of science.that's based upon the thing I wrote on Monday with two different models compared. I am not calling science data stream I am calling the reductionist model data stream,using that image to fix the two different models in the read's mind.

JH: Truth with a capital "T" i that which is and it includes eternal necessary being that can neither cease nor fail to be.It is beyond our understanding.

Interesting opinion. But it is just opinion, until you have evidence to support it. It might be the Truth, it might not. Without evidence we cannot tell.


I have 200 sutdies backing my arguments,that;s more evidence thanyouhave

Pix

Joe Hinman said...

let's see you prove quantum gravity

Anonymous said...


JH: yes i know that but so is his,

No it is not. Science has good evidence to indicate that its claim are right, and it acknowledges that it could be wrong. Christianity fails on both counts.

JH: yes Christianity is empirical. one experiences God first hand,

So give the empirical evidence for the trinity, the virgin birth, the guards on the tomb. We will see how that compares to the evidence for electrons.

JH: no actually it;snot and it;s really disingenuous of you when you must know better,l there is no empirical observation of sub atomic particles,.it's all about inferring the existence of particles from the actions of other particles and how it fits with theory,by that same stnadard,how it fits, christian unseen realm is just as well supported

There is no direct observation of electrons in that we cannot see, feel or hear them, however we have plenty of evidence, evidence we can experience. Right now you are using an electronic device that relies on electronics behaving in a very precise manner, which is excellent empirical evidence that they exist. Old-style CRT monitors working by firing a bean of electrons onto the screen.

Now please show how the claims of Christianity are a well supported.

JH: 200 studies is a lot more certain than most things in science, ...

200 studies show that people really do have mystical experiences. You are making quite a leap to then suppose they come from God.

JH: ... Air bags were proven by only four studies.air pollution was Provence harmful by one study...

I am a little dubious of those figures, the pollution one especially. Acid rain was identified in 1850, there are statistics for death from smog in both London and Philadelphia for 1950, and was known in London from the Middle Ages. The claim that there was only one study would seem to be pushing credibility.

JH: ...religion is not science no reason why it has to be. metaphysics is a lot complicated than science,
must because not as provable in a concrete way doesn't,make it indvalid.,


So how do we determine if these claims are true? Why suppose Christianity is right, rather than Islam or Hinduism? Without evidence, we have no decider.

JH: the idea of comparing God to ordinary empirical objects is purely stupid. that's like expecting to prove the unified field through some first grade science experimenter, then saying I put the balloon in the fridge and got it cold and I did't see the unified field so there isn't one,

So again, how do we decide if it is true or not? It you are right, the all we can say is that they may be a god or some sort out that, but we cannot say for sure if there is, or what its nature is. I would accept that; do you? If you want to assert hat there is a god, and specifically the Christian God, then you need the evidence to support the claim. Whiny that such evidence would not exist does not magically make your claims credible.

Pix

Eric Sotnak said...

"It's the concept of unseen reality that forms the basis of reality"

This is not a theory of truth, but rather a claim about what is true. It conflates a theory of truth with a theory about an object of truth (a metaphysics).

Anonymous said...

JH: let's see you prove quantum gravity

This is an unsolved problem in physics, so I wonder what you are challenging me to prove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Pix

Joe Hinman said...

Eric Sotnak said...
"It's the concept of unseen reality that forms the basis of reality"

This is not a theory of truth, but rather a claim about what is true. It conflates a theory of truth with a theory about an object of truth (a metaphysics).
5:12 AM


The commentary on truth was the correspondence theory and talk about the unseen was an example of how even though it's unseen it's still reality thus part of truth. I could see some of those coming from the cadre blog who I have been arguing with making certain arguments I was heading them off.

Joe Hinman said...

This is an unsolved problem in physics, so I wonder what you are challenging me to prove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity



I know. my way of saying science doesn't yet know everything,

Joe Hinman said...

Anonymous said...

JH: yes i know that but so is his,

No it is not. Science has good evidence to indicate that its claim are right, and it acknowledges that it could be wrong. Christianity fails on both counts.

No it doesn't. I have of good evidence of everything I think.I admit I can be wrong,

JH: yes Christianity is empirical. one experiences God first hand,

So give the empirical evidence for the trinity, the virgin birth, the guards on the tomb. We will see how that compares to the evidence for electrons.


everything in Christianity doesn't have to be empirical, God is and that furnishes the basis upon which we can trust the Bible and relation.

JH: no actually it;snot and it;s really disingenuous of you when you must know better,l there is no empirical observation of sub atomic particles,.it's all about inferring the existence of particles from the actions of other particles and how it fits with theory,by that same stnadard,how it fits, christian unseen realm is just as well supported

There is no direct observation of electrons in that we cannot see, feel or hear them, however we have plenty of evidence, evidence we can experience.

same with God

Right now you are using an electronic device that relies on electronics behaving in a very precise manner, which is excellent empirical evidence that they exist. Old-style CRT monitors working by firing a bean of electrons onto the screen.

right now I feel the presence of god

Now please show how the claims of Christianity are a well supported.

200 didoes demonstrate the validity of religious experience

JH: 200 studies is a lot more certain than most things in science, ...

200 studies show that people really do have mystical experiences. You are making quite a leap to then suppose they come from God.

they show a lot of things most of which back the premise of my three major experience based arguments,

(1) that RE is good for you and makes your life better makes you better

(2) can't be accounted for totally in terms of naturalistic exclamations alone

(3) that the experiences are universal when they should not be if naturalistic is true,

and so on

Joe Hinman said...


JH: ... Air bags were proven by only four studies.air pollution was Provence harmful by one study...

I am a little dubious of those figures, the pollution one especially. Acid rain was identified in 1850, there are statistics for death from smog in both London and Philadelphia for 1950, and was known in London from the Middle Ages. The claim that there was only one study would seem to be pushing credibility.

there are a lot of supporting studies that cleared the way but Lave and Suskin were the first major epidemiological stidy that quantified death nation wide,

JH: ...religion is not science no reason why it has to be. metaphysics is a lot complicated than science,
must because not as provable in a concrete way doesn't,make it indvalid.,

So how do we determine if these claims are true? Why suppose Christianity is right, rather than Islam or Hinduism? Without evidence, we have no decider.

we don't have to understand things in that way, that fundamentalism, we ca understand Christianity as a support group of Christ's mission and all faiths as examples of how cultural constructs color God's outreach.

JH: the idea of comparing God to ordinary empirical objects is purely stupid. that's like expecting to prove the unified field through some first grade science experimenter, then saying I put the balloon in the fridge and got it cold and I did't see the unified field so there isn't one,

So again, how do we decide if it is true or not? It you are right, the all we can say is that they may be a god or some sort out that, but we cannot say for sure if there is, or what its nature is. I would accept that; do you? If you want to assert hat there is a god, and specifically the Christian God, then you need the evidence to support the claim. Whiny that such evidence would not exist does not magically make your claims credible.

yes the evidence does support the claim you just to understand what the claim claims, it doesn't have to be absolute proof. warrant for belief from the best explanation.you ought to read y book,I can't do it justice here,

im-skeptical said...

Most modern Theologians base their view of truth upon the correspondence theory ...

This is quite reasonable on its face. The difference between theologians and the scientifically minded is that theologians simply presuppose what reality consists of, and then claim that their beliefs correspond to that (can you say CIRCULAR REASONING?). The scientifically minded observe what reality consists of (to the extent that it is observable), and then base their beliefs on that.

Joe Hinman said...

This is quite reasonable on its face. The difference between theologians and the scientifically minded is that theologians simply presuppose what reality consists of, and then claim that their beliefs correspond to that (can you say CIRCULAR REASONING?).


since you don't know jack shit about theology you don't know what theologians do. you need to believe that all religious people are stupid because that's how you feel good about yourself by pretending you are superior to religious prole.
since you refuse to learn about theology you are missing the fact that some theologians are among the most brilliant minds, many top theologians are as rigorous as any philosophers. Philosophers are a lot more systematic than scientists.

One of the top theologians of the 20th century was Alfred North Whitehead who invented process theology. He also was a philosopher and mathematician. he helped Bertrand Russell write poinciana Mathematics. John Polkinghorn was the other physicist in the Cambridge department with Hawking, he was world renounced he gave up science to became a priest. Tailhard De Cahrdin was a Priest and major theologian of 20th century who was also a paleontologist and was on the expedition that sought Peking man



The scientifically minded observe what reality consists of (to the extent that it is observable), and then base their beliefs on that.
8:20 AM

Most scientists believe in god even at research universities the majority are Christians,

Joe Hinman said...


Fritz Shafer, nominated for Nobel Prize in Chemistry, University of Georgia, himself a Christian: "it is very rare that a physical scientists is truly an atheist."


Martin Rees at Cambridge: "The possibility of life as we know it depends upon a few basic values which are constants. And it is in some aspect remarkably sensitive to their heir numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences."


Arthur Schewhow, Nobel prize winner from Stanford, identifies himself as a Christian. "We are fortunate to have the Bible which tells us so much about God in widely accessible terms."


Charlie Towns Nobel prize winner: "The question of science seems to be unanswered if we explore from science alone. Thus I believe there is a need for some metaphysical or religious explanation. I believe in the concept of God an in his existence."


John Pokingham, theoretical physicist at Cambridge, left physics to become a minister. "I believe that God exists and has made himself known in Jesus Christ."


Allan Sandage, The world's greatest observational cosmologist , Caregie observatories won a prize given by Swedish parliament equivalent to Nobel prize (there is no Nobel prize for cosmology) became a Christian after being a scientist,

"The nature of God is not found in any part of science, for that we must turn to the scriptures."

im-skeptical said...

"The nature of God is not found in any part of science, for that we must turn to the scriptures."

You got that right.

Joe Hinman said...

science is not metaphysics it's not ontology it's not epistemology, science is about the workings of the physical world. It's not qualified or competent or commissioned to deal with anything beyond that.

im-skeptical said...

Science always precedes metaphysics. Metaphysics (if it has any value) conforms to the scientific understanding of reality. This has always been the case, from the time of Aristotle, right up to the present. Read The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, by Burtt. Any metaphysical system that fails to keep itself in sync with science is doomed to obsolescence, as is the case with Thomism.

Joe Hinman said...

Science always precedes metaphysics. Metaphysics (if it has any value) conforms to the scientific understanding of reality.

No it doesn't. Of course that depends largely upon how you use the term. In Heidegger's philosophy sickness is part of metaphysics. Philosophical issues such as meta physics, ontology, and epistemology are more basic then science, Sciences supported by those frameworks. Science can't support knowledge about metaphysics or epistemology those things must bused to evaluate science.


This has always been the case, from the time of Aristotle, right up to the present. Read The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, by Burtt. Any metaphysical system that fails to keep itself in sync with science is doomed to obsolescence, as is the case with Thomism.

the book is called the metaphysical foundations of early modern science I am the one who told you about it. A.E. Burtt says metaphysics is the foundation of sickness that's the title. Metaphysical FOUNDATIONS! So science is based upon metaphysics not vice versa, science is kept in check by metaphysics not vice versa. The tool for evaluating philosophical issues is logic not empirical sconce,

science does nit prove things science is not a truth finer machine, so it's not an evaluater of metaphysical truth.

Joe Hinman said...

In fact it's the op piste where Burtt quotes Boyle saying science nuts be in sink with logic and anyone who can't use logic ca't do science. That is not science keeping metaphysics in check with empirical data,it's metaphysics keeping science in check, with logic.

You are probably going to claim that you know about about Burtt's book a long time ago but I've proved you don't read things you probably haven't read more than a couple of pages of Burtt if that much. I first read tat book back in graduate school about early 90s.

im-skeptical said...

I read it long before I ever heard if you, and I don't care when you read the book (and you got the title wrong, by the way, not me). But if you understood what you read, you would realize that metaphysics has changed over the course of history, always in keeping with science.

And logic is not metaphysics. Logic is just a recognition of physical reality. Science is based on logic, and metaphysics is based on science.

Joe Hinman said...

I read it long before I ever heard if you, and I don't care when you read the book (and you got the title wrong, by the way, not me).

I added the word early big deal I haven;t read it in 20 years,

But if you understood what you read, you would realize that metaphysics has changed over the course of history, always in keeping with science.

that is immaterial, he still says science is based upon metaphysics, not the other way around, you are still just thinking about establishing empirical facts.

And logic is not metaphysics. Logic is just a recognition of physical reality. Science is based on logic, and metaphysics is based on science.


yes it clearly is, you have no idea what metaphysics is, you think it's belief in magic or belief in supernatural or unseen, those are examples of some metaphysics but they don't define what metaphysics is. science is also metaphysics, especially if you are Heideggerian.
2:51 PM

Eric Sotnak said...

There is a problem with "based on" in this discussion. It assumes that there is some static foundation which must be in place before anything else is built upon it. But that isn't actually how either science or metaphysics works. Scientific models and metaphysical models both need to be revisable in light of new evidence. im-skeptical is therefore absolutely correct in saying that "Any metaphysical system that fails to keep itself in sync with science is doomed to obsolescence". The Cartesian model of matter as nothing but extension is a perfect example. There are no Cartesian materialists anywhere, and if there were they would be justly ignored.

But things are much more complicated that the picture suggested by im-skeptical: "The scientifically minded observe what reality consists of (to the extent that it is observable), and then base their beliefs on that" because "what reality consists of" is not something that can simply be observed. There is a tangled web of interplay between refining our scientific models of reality on the basis of observation, and interpreting the results of our observations according to the scientific models of reality we provisionally accept. Sometimes we need to refine the models, but sometimes we need to revise our interpretations of what we are observing.

All of our empirical observations are equally consistent with the hypothesis that we are living in a detailed computer simulation and also with realism. The choice between these metaphysical models cannot, therefore, be settled by conducting more observations. What will motivate the choice will actually, on my view, be neither metaphysical foundations nor scientific foundations, but pragmatic considerations.

im-skeptical said...

Eric,

Thank you for your comments. I think that science and metaphysics build upon and support each other. I have always believed that science and philosophy (more broadly) should go hand-in-hand.

Regarding the computer simulation, while we can't prove by observation that it's not true, my feeling is that we have no reason to think that it should be the case.

Joe Hinman said...

Eric Sotnak said...
There is a problem with "based on" in this discussion. It assumes that there is some static foundation which must be in place before anything else is built upon it. But that isn't actually how either science or metaphysics works. Scientific models and metaphysical models both need to be revisable in light of new evidence. im-skeptical is therefore absolutely correct in saying that "Any metaphysical system that fails to keep itself in sync with science is doomed to obsolescence". The Cartesian model of matter as nothing but extension is a perfect example. There are no Cartesian materialists anywhere, and if there were they would be justly ignored.

Yes that is a good point,I should have spent more time developing my model. That doesnot mean that the data stream notion is justified, There's still the idea of interpretation and that assumes pre conceived categories,Skep is workingmen a totally different model than am I,He doesn't understand Heidegger. He equates Metaphysics the belief in God so he thinks Christians must be pro metaphysics. Heidegger does not understand metaphysics as things beyond observation but as preconceived categories that govern how we group sense data in ordainment a view of the world. Thus in that sense sickness is metaphysics and belief in God is not necessarily metaphysics. So then the idea that science is required to keep Metaphysics in line is absurd. It also means you will make metaphysical assumptions in doing science.

But things are much more complicated that the picture suggested by im-skeptical: "The scientifically minded observe what reality consists of (to the extent that it is observable), and then base their beliefs on that" because "what reality consists of" is not something that can simply be observed. There is a tangled web of interplay between refining our scientific models of reality on the basis of observation, and interpreting the results of our observations according to the scientific models of reality we provisionally accept. Sometimes we need to refine the models, but sometimes we need to revise our interpretations of what we are observing.

That comes with paradigm shifts but again that too is metaphysical.
The shit to a paradigm is the acceptance of a metaphysical construct because it's a matter of organizer sense data in accepting a model.


All of our empirical observations are equally consistent with the hypothesis that we are living in a detailed computer simulation and also with realism. The choice between these metaphysical models cannot, therefore, be settled by conducting more observations. What will motivate the choice will actually, on my view, be neither metaphysical foundations nor scientific foundations, but pragmatic considerations.

Exactly but that means you will of necessity adopt cretin metaphysical assumptions in any kind of paradigm shift.That means metaphysics driving science, Naturalism a metaphysical assumption. The naturalistic framework upon which Skep is so ministrant is a metaphysical assumption.

Bottom lime imn getting back to the essay the data stream is conception within the construct of metaphysical assumption,it is embedded within the closed realm of discourse, The timeless truth model allows for transcendence of the realm of discourse, That;s the point of my image going over the hill and we don't know what's there.

5:17 AM

Joe Hinman said...

Thank you for your comments. I think that science and metaphysics build upon and support each other. I have always believed that science and philosophy (more broadly) should go hand-in-hand.

Maybe I wasn't giving you enough credible for being flexible. But that conceptions still holds science as opposed or at least being different from metaphysics and in Heideggarian terms its a form of metaphysical.

im-skeptical said...

He doesn't understand Heidegger.
- Not familiar with his philosophy.

He equates Metaphysics the belief in God so he thinks Christians must be pro metaphysics.
- You obviously don't understand a word I've said about metaphysics. To me metaphysics is the philosophy of being and the nature of reality. Theistic metaphysics is loaded with magical nonsense, but scientific-based metaphysics is a serious endeavor for philosophers.

Eric Sotnak said...

"He doesn't understand Heidegger."

Can't blame him for that - even Heidegger didn't understand Heidegger.

Joe Hinman said...

ahahaha I know but that didn't stop him from running off at the mouth. biggest wijd bag in philosophy.

Joe Hinman said...

He doesn't understand Heidegger.
- Not familiar with his philosophy.

No shame man, not meant as criticism,

Neta:He equates Metaphysics the belief in God so he thinks Christians must be pro metaphysics.

- You obviously don't understand a word I've said about metaphysics. To me metaphysics is the philosophy of being and the nature of reality. Theistic metaphysics is loaded with magical nonsense, but scientific-based metaphysics is a serious endeavor for philosophers.

Ok great, sorry I under estimated you/