Cainkane1
Philosopher
I'm sure that Philosophy has greatly benefitted from the study of metaphysics because Aristotle was a student of thei branch of scence but is this really science or just woo?
Is metaphysics a pseudoscience?
- Thread starter Cainkane1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- metaphysics
Cainkane1
Philosopher
Aristotle's Metaphysics was divided into three parts, in addition to some smaller sections related to a philosophical lexicon and some reprinted extracts from the Physics, which are now regarded as the proper branches of traditional Western metaphysics:
Ontology
The study of Being and existence; includes the definition and classification of entities, physical or mental, the nature of their properties, and the nature of change.
Natural Theology
The study of a God or Gods; involves many topics, including among others the nature of religion and the world, existence of the divine, questions about Creation, and the numerous religious or spiritual issues that concern humankind in general.
Universal science
The study of first principles, which Aristotle believed to be the foundation of all other inquiries. An example of such a principle is the law of noncontradiction and the status it holds in non-paraconsistent logics.
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 12,454
Neither: it's philosophy.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,364
Philosophy<>Science.
Apples<>Cheese.
Apples<>Cheese.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
I found this gem from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, under "Metaphysics" to be quite educational. "A second problem in this family is the “problem of Tib and Tibbles.” Tibbles is a cat. Call his tail ‘Tail’. Call “all of him but his tail” ‘Tib’. Suppose Tail is cut off—or, better, annihilated. Tibbles still exists, for a cat can survive the loss of its tail. And it would seem that Tib will exist after the “loss” of Tail, because Tib lost no part. But what will be the relation between Tib and Tibbles? Can it be identity? No, that is ruled out by the non-identity of discernibles, for Tibbles will have become smaller and Tib will remain the same size. But then, once again, we seem to have a case of spatially coincident material objects that share their momentary non-modal properties."
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
In current use (at least, amongst the woo-ish) "metaphysics" seems to include any bizarre system or belief that the speaker is interested in.
A long as you stick with the original idea as iterated by Aristotle, it might be a vehicle for addressing the un-addressable.
A long as you stick with the original idea as iterated by Aristotle, it might be a vehicle for addressing the un-addressable.
jasonpatterson
Philanthropic Misanthrope
There are a great many philosophical systems that are logical (like science) but based on axioms that are not evidence based (unlike science.)
Occult and paranormal phenomena tend to be neither logical nor evidence based.
Pseudoscience, on the other hand, tends to be something that was proposed as a scientific hypothesis but the test of that hypothesis showed it to be false. Unlike science, however, the hypothesis has continued to be accepted in the face of substantial negative evidence.
Occult and paranormal phenomena tend to be neither logical nor evidence based.
Pseudoscience, on the other hand, tends to be something that was proposed as a scientific hypothesis but the test of that hypothesis showed it to be false. Unlike science, however, the hypothesis has continued to be accepted in the face of substantial negative evidence.
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 44,024
The short answer is 'no'. The longer answer could take a few volumes to discuss.
The first problem is the demarkation problem of science. The 'Vienna Circle' in the early 20th century tried to define science by the way of 'logical positivism', which excluded metaphysical musings on the grounds that they weren't directly empirical by nature. On the surface, this makes sense. Yet it's difficult to define metaphysics in a way that still gives validity to mathematical observations.
The downfall of logical positivism was that it coincided with discussions on relativity, which at the time was very metaphysical in concept. The 'if it can't be directly observed, it should not be considered science' concept of metaphysics fails to consider that deductive reasoning on its own can be productive.
Of course, science is not a dichotomy. It is a spectrum of conclusions in which we have various degrees of confidence in matching observations. One can't exclude the tools of mathematical reasoning simply because they're metaphysical, as was discovered during early 20th century physics. Obviously, if that had have happened, scientific progress would have been worse off.
The problem arises when metaphysics is given undue weight of confidence. Reasoning is useful, especially if a system of logic is applied. In that way, metaphysics plays a role in the scientific process. Yet empiricism is needed to make that final connection with reality. An idea can be metaphysically beautiful - yet all it takes is one observation to destroy it.
Athon
The first problem is the demarkation problem of science. The 'Vienna Circle' in the early 20th century tried to define science by the way of 'logical positivism', which excluded metaphysical musings on the grounds that they weren't directly empirical by nature. On the surface, this makes sense. Yet it's difficult to define metaphysics in a way that still gives validity to mathematical observations.
The downfall of logical positivism was that it coincided with discussions on relativity, which at the time was very metaphysical in concept. The 'if it can't be directly observed, it should not be considered science' concept of metaphysics fails to consider that deductive reasoning on its own can be productive.
Of course, science is not a dichotomy. It is a spectrum of conclusions in which we have various degrees of confidence in matching observations. One can't exclude the tools of mathematical reasoning simply because they're metaphysical, as was discovered during early 20th century physics. Obviously, if that had have happened, scientific progress would have been worse off.
The problem arises when metaphysics is given undue weight of confidence. Reasoning is useful, especially if a system of logic is applied. In that way, metaphysics plays a role in the scientific process. Yet empiricism is needed to make that final connection with reality. An idea can be metaphysically beautiful - yet all it takes is one observation to destroy it.
Athon