Scientific Arrogance

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Arjen

you seem to use the word metaphysical in the sense of divine, or supernatural. Metaphysical merely means reason.

No, I'm using it as pertains to propositions about the ultimate nature of reality. The adjective "metaphysical" is defined, so you don't need to invent your own definition here. Metaphysical does NOT "merely mean reason".

metaphysical - Definitions from Dictionary.com
metaphysical - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

If you'd like to read up on the differences between metaphysics and reason:

Metaphysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Philosophical Dictionary: Mesos-Misericordiam
Dictionary of Philosophy
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Metaphysics


Philosophical Dictionary: Ramsey-Reification
Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dictionary of Philosophy
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Reason

It's no wonder we're talking past each other if we can't even agree on basic terms. We could start by taking common terms like "metaphysical" and using them in the most orthodox way, rather than giving some soft and very imprecise personal definition like "metaphysical merely means reason". THIS is why I refuse to respond to your use of terms like "potentiality" and "actuality" -- because you use them as if this abstract use is somehow engraved on a slab of marble in the sky, whereas what you don't realize is that your REAL challenge is to DEFINE them so that we're on common ground. Otherwise metaphysics just boils down to what it always has -- a word game.

[Arjen]

That is not what the word means. When reading carefully you will realise some of your own sources confirm that. If you wish to debate your vision on the word "metaphysics" perhaps you should start a topic on this.

I hope that you will try and offer an explanation to your refutations in the mean time because for now I am thinking that you are stating phallacies. Perhaps you should read this book before we argue this point any further.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Arjen

That is not what the word means. When reading carefully you will realise some of your own sources confirm that. If you wish to debate your vision on the word "metaphysics" perhaps you should start a topic on this.

As soon as you provide me a credible source in which "metaphysics" is openly defined as "reason" (or "merely reason") I'll sympathize with your point of view. Until then you're just twisting around words for the purposes of accusing your interlocutors of fallacies and self-refutation. And no productive conversation is going to come of that -- how can I know if you even understand what you mean, let alone what I mean, if you define words so loosely?

[Arjen]

Aedes, it is you who is refuting yourself, it is you (as well as many, many others) who is twisting the meaning of words around and I do believe that you have never read a very great number of philosophers. I will mention the best known of them: Kant. He openly definies metaphysics as reason. He very distinctly (at the risk of his own life) seperates metaphysics from transcendentality. So, shall we get strated with our topic on metaphysics?

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I didn't say there's no such thing as absolute truth. All I've said is that it cannot be known. And it doesn't take a logical system -- it just takes the knowledge that humans are not omniscient.

EVERYTHING I know I have learned through sense data and experience. Science is merely the formalization of this in order to understand the physical world.

Ok, when philosophy and theology come up with a cure for cancer, engineers a fuel-efficient car, or discovers a new species of dinosaur I'll go along with you. Until then scientific limitations will only be overcome by advances in science.

We would have to step back and clarify a long list of terms before I could say much more.

[Aedes]

Arjen,

First, it really doesn't matter to me what you believe I've read. I've read (and studied academically) more than you think, including Kant, but if you don't believe me then I don't care.

Second, for you to say that Kant defined metaphysics as reason is an egregious oversimplification of what Kant had to say on BOTH subjects.

Third, Kant is hardly the only voice out there on either metaphysics or reason. So unless you regard this conversation as solely about Kant's particular treatment of the subject, then you had better find more generalizable definitions that are acceptable in a broad philosophical context.

[Arjen]

Aedes, why the sudden defence? I am merely counter arguing you, not attacking you.

Originally Posted by Aedes

First, it really doesn't matter to me what you believe I've read. I've read (and studied academically) more than you think, including Kant, but if you don't believe me then I don't care.

I never said I didn't believe you, but I do admit that the more I discuss with you the more I think that you have wasted a lot of money on an education you could have got for a dollar fifty in a public library.

Second, for you to say that Kant defined metaphysics as reason is an egregious oversimplification of what Kant had to say on BOTH subjects.

I never said it was all he had to say on the subject, I am saying that Kant seperates the transcendental form the meatphysics in his definitions.

Third, Kant is hardly the only voice out there on either metaphysics or reason. So unless you regard this conversation as solely about Kant's particular treatment of the subject, then you had better find more generalizable definitions that are acceptable in a broad philosophical context.

There are many voices out there. You asked for one who stated that metaphysics was reason. I could have named any one out of a long line dating back to Greece. So, are you now going to start a topic on metaphysics?

I hope you will not lead this topic more astray. I also hope you will gie me an explanation of you refutations, for I am still convinced it is a fallcy.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Arjen

the more I discuss with you the more I think that you have wasted a lot of money on an education you could have got for a dollar fifty in a public library.

I hope you will not lead this topic more astray.

More astray than this? As much as we've sparred with one another, personal judgements should be left out.


Let's let Resha move this back to where he wants it.

[NeitherExtreme]

Hi Aedes.

Does science, or those who claim to live by a generally scientific worldview, define the word "know" in such a way that it is only meaningfully able to be used within the scientific context? (Either in official writin form or simply by practice.) I assume they do. And it makes perfect sense to me that for scientific purposes and discussions they would do exactly that, so that's not an accusation.

I think the possible arrogance being discussed could come from the feeling that scientists then, intintionally, or even moreso unintentionally, act as though everyone should accept their definitions of the word "know" as the most valid definition. This, I assume, would happen mostly un-intentionally, but simply result from functioning within their own worldview, as all of us do, as they interact with other worldviews. (This perception of arrogance of course could be the "fault" of either party, or both, or maybe neither.)

We know () that we can not really ever perfectly or logically define the word "know". I think we agree on that one at least! (I don't think I need to show why science isn't exempt.) We all use "know" within our own contexts, and so we all only "know" colloquially. I think it might become arrogance when we think that we really "know" (regardless of what that means to us), while all others can only know "colloquially". So if a scientist feels justified in his "knowledge", then he ought to accept that others can feel justified in their "knowledge". If he feels otherwise, then he should accept that others will find him arrogant at times. We can't have it both ways. (By the way, I'm actually not saying that we should attempt to believe/act in such a way that no one will find us arrogant, that's not possible.)

Hope that made sense... it feels like a convoluted way of saying a simple idea.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Aedes

More astray than this? As much as we've sparred with one another, personal judgements should be left out.

I just think that someone who is of an opinion should at least be prepared to re-examine that opinion when it is being challanged, scrutinized or questioned. The failure to do so and most of all the deni-all of the existance of opposing theories I call very unscientific. In any education this should be taught before anything else is taught. If this behavior is not adopted by a student I think that person has wasted a lot of money on an education he could have got for a dollar fifty in a public library.

Let's let Resha move this back to where he wants it.

Perhaps we should discuss part of our opinions in a topic on metaphysics? That way this topic can get back to what it was about in the first place.