What is Metaphysics?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2014, 08:14 PM
RE: What is Metaphysics?
(07-07-2014 07:41 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 01:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I'd say String theory or M-theory is literally about metaphysics, because it requires about 7 or 6 extra dimensions beyond 3D + time to work.

Dear Sir,

No.

Yours, cordially,
cjlr

It occurs to me this is overly brusque, because what I meant by it is that Luminon almost certainly does not understand string theory.
(and "because extra dimensions" is very unclear as reasoning)

I, however, would say that science and metaphysics are, properly, a continuum; untestable ideas (be they extrapolated from testable science, or fitted to testable science, as string theories are to some extent) are necessarily metaphysical.

Metaphysics as usefully understood is the pre-game for the scientific game proper. Unfortunately, the word has been seriously tarnished by a string of bad associations.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
07-07-2014, 08:18 PM
RE: What is Metaphysics?
(07-07-2014 07:50 PM)Smercury44 Wrote:  Forgive me, I haven't read most of this thread (this is all kind of over my head), but I listened to a rationally speaking podcast recently that seemed to take the subject seriously (though, I admit most of this episode was over my head as well Undecided ). Don't tell me my Massimo is taking woo seriously?

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2...james.html

You don't think that understanding the fundamental nature of the universe as a whole is important? I do. It is the first thing we need to know.

Metaphysics, properly understood, is not a mystery. Since it deals with the most fundamental concepts it is directly perceivable.

Existence exists - we all know this from first had knowledge by directly perceiving it.

Since we perceive existence we also know that we posses consciousness.

We know that to be something is to posses a specific nature or identity.

We know that things exist independently from anyone's consciousness, that existence has primacy over consciousness.

What's so mysterious or woo woo about any of that?

If the above isn't true then there is no one and no consciousness to ask "what is Metaphysics?".

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 08:23 PM
RE: What is Metaphysics?
(07-07-2014 08:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 07:50 PM)Smercury44 Wrote:  Forgive me, I haven't read most of this thread (this is all kind of over my head), but I listened to a rationally speaking podcast recently that seemed to take the subject seriously (though, I admit most of this episode was over my head as well Undecided ). Don't tell me my Massimo is taking woo seriously?

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2...james.html

You don't think that understanding the fundamental nature of the universe as a whole is important? I do. It is the first thing we need to know.

Metaphysics, properly understood, is not a mystery. Since it deals with the most fundamental concepts it is directly perceivable.

Existence exists - we all know this from first had knowledge by directly perceiving it.

Since we perceive existence we also know that we posses consciousness.

We know that to be something is to posses a specific nature or identity.

We know that things exist independently from anyone's consciousness, that existence has primacy over consciousness.

What's so mysterious or woo woo about any of that?

If the above isn't true then there is no one and no consciousness to ask "what is Metaphysics?".

Yeah, that's kind of the gist I was getting, but I saw a lot of folks in here saying it's nonsense and woo.

Could it be then that the term "metaphysics" has been claimed by woo-pushers as "quantum physics" was before it could get a stronghold this making it seem like nonsense? Consider

Just trying to figure out what the heck to think about all this.

I hope that the world turns, and things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I love you. - V for Vendetta
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 08:27 PM
RE: What is Metaphysics?
(07-07-2014 08:23 PM)Smercury44 Wrote:  Yeah, that's kind of the gist I was getting, but I saw a lot of folks in here saying it's nonsense and woo.

That's overly strong, but on the other hand, perhaps warranted, as the usage one is likely to encounter outside of dedicated contexts are almost unerringly bullshit of the highest calibre...

(07-07-2014 08:23 PM)Smercury44 Wrote:  Could it be then that the term "metaphysics" has been claimed by woo-pushers as "quantum physics" was before it could get a stronghold this making it seem like nonsense? Consider

Just so. Alas.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 08:46 PM
RE: What is Metaphysics?
(07-07-2014 08:23 PM)Smercury44 Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 08:18 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  You don't think that understanding the fundamental nature of the universe as a whole is important? I do. It is the first thing we need to know.

Metaphysics, properly understood, is not a mystery. Since it deals with the most fundamental concepts it is directly perceivable.

Existence exists - we all know this from first had knowledge by directly perceiving it.

Since we perceive existence we also know that we posses consciousness.

We know that to be something is to posses a specific nature or identity.

We know that things exist independently from anyone's consciousness, that existence has primacy over consciousness.

What's so mysterious or woo woo about any of that?

If the above isn't true then there is no one and no consciousness to ask "what is Metaphysics?".

Yeah, that's kind of the gist I was getting, but I saw a lot of folks in here saying it's nonsense and woo.

Could it be then that the term "metaphysics" has been claimed by woo-pushers as "quantum physics" was before it could get a stronghold this making it seem like nonsense? Consider

Just trying to figure out what the heck to think about all this.

Yep. It's that there are many different views on Metaphysics and with only very few exceptions they have all been formulated to deny that existence exists or that it is knowable by us.

The most fundamental question in the universe is: what is the proper orientation of the relationship between a consciousness and its objects. does existence have primacy over consciousness or does consciousness have primacy over existence. Basically this means do the things (objects) that we perceive conform to our wishes, feelings, likes, hopes, fears, or tantrums or are the things we perceive independent of anyone's conscious activity. Is the universe objective or subjective.

With only one exception that I know of every philosophy so far has held some form of the primacy of consciousness, hence all the woo woo.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2014, 09:50 PM
RE: What is Metaphysics?
(07-07-2014 08:46 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 08:23 PM)Smercury44 Wrote:  Yeah, that's kind of the gist I was getting, but I saw a lot of folks in here saying it's nonsense and woo.

Could it be then that the term "metaphysics" has been claimed by woo-pushers as "quantum physics" was before it could get a stronghold this making it seem like nonsense? Consider

Just trying to figure out what the heck to think about all this.

Yep. It's that there are many different views on Metaphysics and with only very few exceptions they have all been formulated to deny that existence exists or that it is knowable by us.

The most fundamental question in the universe is: what is the proper orientation of the relationship between a consciousness and its objects. does existence have primacy over consciousness or does consciousness have primacy over existence. Basically this means do the things (objects) that we perceive conform to our wishes, feelings, likes, hopes, fears, or tantrums or are the things we perceive independent of anyone's conscious activity. Is the universe objective or subjective.

With only one exception that I know of every philosophy so far has held some form of the primacy of consciousness, hence all the woo woo.

It's kind of ironic that the one philosophy which doesn't allow for any woo woo in its metaphysics is not taken seriously while all of the other ones that do are.

When you get down to it I think most humans have a need to believe in woo woo so they will reject any view of the world which doesn't allow for it. That is why religion is so popular and accepted and why it will probably always be around.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 12:40 AM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2014 01:03 AM by Luminon.)
RE: What is Metaphysics?
(07-07-2014 07:41 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 01:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I'd say String theory or M-theory is literally about metaphysics, because it requires about 7 or 6 extra dimensions beyond 3D + time to work.

Dear Sir,

No.

Yours, cordially,
cjlr
Consider Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
Consider Also, how is it then philosophically classified? A rational argument?

(07-07-2014 08:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It occurs to me this is overly brusque, because what I meant by it is that Luminon almost certainly does not understand string theory.
(and "because extra dimensions" is very unclear as reasoning)

I, however, would say that science and metaphysics are, properly, a continuum; untestable ideas (be they extrapolated from testable science, or fitted to testable science, as string theories are to some extent) are necessarily metaphysical.

Metaphysics as usefully understood is the pre-game for the scientific game proper. Unfortunately, the word has been seriously tarnished by a string of bad associations.
Believe it or not, that's what I actually meant. And that's how I understand metaphysics, ideally a prelude to testable science.

Skeptics have always told me, if you see something and don't run to test it and reproduce it in laboratory the moment you see it, you're full of crap. In my experience, there are always more things in existence than we are able to test and reproduce in laboratory, that's like all the work done from my point of view. There are phenomena which left me clueless as to their nature for most of my life. My cluelessness was always taken for avoidance, because they apparently assumed that anything visible or tangible is easy enough to test and reproduce. Nonsense. The problem of integrating metaphysics into proper science is much deeper. The sum of knowledge in a scientific field is a language, a jargon. It fits together in a certain logical way and it is necessary to know it. But even as I get some idea of it, I may find out, that the scientific field has no words in the vocabulary that might describe the new phenomenon. Or it has, but these words do not have the connotations - the potential connections I'd need to make. So it is quite impossible to form a sensible hypothesis, because it will sound like purposefully misapplied science at best, woo-woo at worst. In my experience, a good preparation of what I deal with for science requires also hell of a social research with critical text interpretation that ties into neurology and an insight from a few other fields, such as plasma physics. It's a multi-disciplinary clusterfuck-fest that starts in murky depths of social research, history and comparative religion and would have consequences all the way to respected natural science. There is probably no way to pull that off without going along with historical developments in all the science and probably after government funding changes and half of the scientists in charge die off from old age. This is what metaphysics is too - an ocean full of big fishes for which we may not have nets of concepts at the moment, but which do disturb some people from time to time. Science is like a predator that slowly evolves and adapts to its elusive prey over the ages. Unfortunately, when it comes to the really big prey, the present science is a bottom feeder.

I believe that if scientists were also philosophers of language, science, metaphysics (and morality for good measure), they would be much more tolerant to new hypotheses and also much more flexible in formulating them. But in today's world, literally almost everyone sucks at philosophy, even scientists. And those who don't suck at philosophy, are usually no scientists - or they don't apply philosophy to science, they don't know how.

There is just no nice and easy way to name something that is entirely new, or ancient but thought as woo-woo. There is no scientific way to choose nice, neutral and meaningful names for the phenomena on their way from metaphysics to physics to make them sound better to scientists. This is why innovation of field jargon always takes place in a small inner circle of researchers, who feel comfortable coining new words and trying new parameters of research, without committees and conferences looking over their shoulder. But anybody who tries to do the same from the outside of science, will be either rejected if his arguments are bad, or if good, he will be kept being kicked upwards until he ends up in precisely such a private research group, where even loony words may be given a real meaning within proper science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 03:18 PM
Re: RE: What is Metaphysics?
(08-07-2014 12:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 07:41 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Dear Sir,

No.

Yours, cordially,
cjlr
Consider Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
Consider Also, how is it then philosophically classified? A rational argument?

(07-07-2014 08:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It occurs to me this is overly brusque, because what I meant by it is that Luminon almost certainly does not understand string theory.
(and "because extra dimensions" is very unclear as reasoning)

I, however, would say that science and metaphysics are, properly, a continuum; untestable ideas (be they extrapolated from testable science, or fitted to testable science, as string theories are to some extent) are necessarily metaphysical.

Metaphysics as usefully understood is the pre-game for the scientific game proper. Unfortunately, the word has been seriously tarnished by a string of bad associations.
Believe it or not, that's what I actually meant. And that's how I understand metaphysics, ideally a prelude to testable science.

Skeptics have always told me, if you see something and don't run to test it and reproduce it in laboratory the moment you see it, you're full of crap. In my experience, there are always more things in existence than we are able to test and reproduce in laboratory, that's like all the work done from my point of view. There are phenomena which left me clueless as to their nature for most of my life. My cluelessness was always taken for avoidance, because they apparently assumed that anything visible or tangible is easy enough to test and reproduce. Nonsense. The problem of integrating metaphysics into proper science is much deeper. The sum of knowledge in a scientific field is a language, a jargon. It fits together in a certain logical way and it is necessary to know it. But even as I get some idea of it, I may find out, that the scientific field has no words in the vocabulary that might describe the new phenomenon. Or it has, but these words do not have the connotations - the potential connections I'd need to make. So it is quite impossible to form a sensible hypothesis, because it will sound like purposefully misapplied science at best, woo-woo at worst. In my experience, a good preparation of what I deal with for science requires also hell of a social research with critical text interpretation that ties into neurology and an insight from a few other fields, such as plasma physics. It's a multi-disciplinary clusterfuck-fest that starts in murky depths of social research, history and comparative religion and would have consequences all the way to respected natural science. There is probably no way to pull that off without going along with historical developments in all the science and probably after government funding changes and half of the scientists in charge die off from old age. This is what metaphysics is too - an ocean full of big fishes for which we may not have nets of concepts at the moment, but which do disturb some people from time to time. Science is like a predator that slowly evolves and adapts to its elusive prey over the ages. Unfortunately, when it comes to the really big prey, the present science is a bottom feeder.

I believe that if scientists were also philosophers of language, science, metaphysics (and morality for good measure), they would be much more tolerant to new hypotheses and also much more flexible in formulating them. But in today's world, literally almost everyone sucks at philosophy, even scientists. And those who don't suck at philosophy, are usually no scientists - or they don't apply philosophy to science, they don't know how.

There is just no nice and easy way to name something that is entirely new, or ancient but thought as woo-woo. There is no scientific way to choose nice, neutral and meaningful names for the phenomena on their way from metaphysics to physics to make them sound better to scientists. This is why innovation of field jargon always takes place in a small inner circle of researchers, who feel comfortable coining new words and trying new parameters of research, without committees and conferences looking over their shoulder. But anybody who tries to do the same from the outside of science, will be either rejected if his arguments are bad, or if good, he will be kept being kicked upwards until he ends up in precisely such a private research group, where even loony words may be given a real meaning within proper science.

Labels aren't purposeful at anything but trying to make thinks simpler for people to grasp. They themselves don't define how anything works.

Calling what isn't yet known by science in physics metaphysics doesn't assist anybody. The names etymology may make it seem fitting but it benefits nobody to use it that way when it relates to a different context.

There's far more trouble with weak labeling than benefits. That's what causes scientific illiterate people to say things like it's just a theory or call unproven hypotheses science fiction.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 03:37 PM
RE: What is Metaphysics?
(08-07-2014 12:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Believe it or not, that's what I actually meant. And that's how I understand metaphysics, ideally a prelude to testable science.

I see. That may well apply to string theories; I am nonetheless skeptical of your actual understanding of them, given your mis-use of every other physical term under the sun, from field to plasma to dark matter and beyond.

(08-07-2014 12:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Skeptics have always told me, if you see something and don't run to test it and reproduce it in laboratory the moment you see it, you're full of crap. In my experience, there are always more things in existence than we are able to test and reproduce in laboratory, that's like all the work done from my point of view.

Define laboratory.

The scientific method and mindset are the only way anyone has ever learned anything about anything. So there's that.

(08-07-2014 12:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There are phenomena which left me clueless as to their nature for most of my life. My cluelessness was always taken for avoidance, because they apparently assumed that anything visible or tangible is easy enough to test and reproduce. Nonsense. The problem of integrating metaphysics into proper science is much deeper. The sum of knowledge in a scientific field is a language, a jargon. It fits together in a certain logical way and it is necessary to know it. But even as I get some idea of it, I may find out, that the scientific field has no words in the vocabulary that might describe the new phenomenon. Or it has, but these words do not have the connotations - the potential connections I'd need to make. So it is quite impossible to form a sensible hypothesis, because it will sound like purposefully misapplied science at best, woo-woo at worst.

You have to put forward coherent testable hypothesis to be taken seriously. Here's where you can start. Any evidence. Of anything. Period. Unless reliable conditions and competent observers are too much like a dreaded "laboratory", which would make any claim of yours self-defeating and incoherent.

(08-07-2014 12:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  In my experience, a good preparation of what I deal with for science requires also hell of a social research with critical text interpretation that ties into neurology and an insight from a few other fields, such as plasma physics.

You don't even know what plasma is.

(08-07-2014 12:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's a multi-disciplinary clusterfuck-fest that starts in murky depths of social research, history and comparative religion and would have consequences all the way to respected natural science. There is probably no way to pull that off without going along with historical developments in all the science and probably after government funding changes and half of the scientists in charge die off from old age. This is what metaphysics is too - an ocean full of big fishes for which we may not have nets of concepts at the moment, but which do disturb some people from time to time. Science is like a predator that slowly evolves and adapts to its elusive prey over the ages. Unfortunately, when it comes to the really big prey, the present science is a bottom feeder.

You sound less like a resentful crank when you aren't glibly insulting millions of people for not riding your woo-train.

Just a tip.

(08-07-2014 12:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I believe that if scientists were also philosophers of language, science, metaphysics (and morality for good measure), they would be much more tolerant to new hypotheses and also much more flexible in formulating them. But in today's world, literally almost everyone sucks at philosophy, even scientists. And those who don't suck at philosophy, are usually no scientists - or they don't apply philosophy to science, they don't know how.

There is some truth to that. There is so much stupid and terrible philosophy out there that many people (especially many scientists) ignore the whole field. Likewise philosophers, the terrible ones and also some who are not, are very often utterly scientifically ignorant.

(08-07-2014 12:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There is just no nice and easy way to name something that is entirely new, or ancient but thought as woo-woo. There is no scientific way to choose nice, neutral and meaningful names for the phenomena on their way from metaphysics to physics to make them sound better to scientists. This is why innovation of field jargon always takes place in a small inner circle of researchers, who feel comfortable coining new words and trying new parameters of research, without committees and conferences looking over their shoulder. But anybody who tries to do the same from the outside of science, will be either rejected if his arguments are bad, or if good, he will be kept being kicked upwards until he ends up in precisely such a private research group, where even loony words may be given a real meaning within proper science.

Oh God, it's "lol conspiracy" again.

Facepalm

No

Weeping

How about "no".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
09-07-2014, 05:18 AM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2014 05:34 AM by Luminon.)
RE: What is Metaphysics?
*Here's today's entertainment session for the whole audience. Bowing I hope you enjoy the show, my patience is running out, if nobody ELSE has any questions. I'm doing this for you, invisible audience, not for clear-cut specialists Cjlr or Chas.

Language is not infinitely flexible. All languages, especially scientific, have a limited ability to assimilate new ideas. If you know only one language, you never notice that. Your awareness will be only as good as your one language. There will always be data to gather, down to infinity. But being caught as a specialist within one language is a special small hell where we are quite competent, yet nothing else works, nothing else is real, yet it's all right, because it's not our fault, so we tell ourselves. Just stick with the method and don't care about the language that uses the method or even reasons why you do all this. Get old, get senile, die.

(08-07-2014 03:18 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Labels aren't purposeful at anything but trying to make thinks simpler for people to grasp. They themselves don't define how anything works.

Calling what isn't yet known by science in physics metaphysics doesn't assist anybody. The names etymology may make it seem fitting but it benefits nobody to use it that way when it relates to a different context.

There's far more trouble with weak labeling than benefits. That's what causes scientific illiterate people to say things like it's just a theory or call unproven hypotheses science fiction.
Labels are easy, concepts are hard. Concepts must make sense in relation to each other and to reality, that's not labeling, that's creating a whole language. Nothing ever gets done collectively without a language.

Metaphysics is an absolute logical necessity. Why? Because the body of knowledge in science is finite and it is expanding. It has come from somewhere, expand into something that already exists. We call that something metaphysics and we refer to it all the time. Words like "world" and "nature" and "reality" are metaphysical references, because we do not know them completely. But I think they're also concepts, because there's no mistaking them for something else, they have a firm place in our language.
To presume that only the scientifically known things exist is positivism (or perhaps scientism) and it is fallacious. I know scientists reject this absolute positivism, but I'd say they are still pretty damn conservative and do not make enough allowance for metaphysics, even though it is greater than physics. For example, a string theory with several extra dimensions should be more believable than a theory of everything that explains perfectly what we know exists today, but presumes nothing else will be discovered next, that it ties the loose ends too soon. That is just not the nature of reality.


(08-07-2014 03:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define laboratory.

The scientific method and mindset are the only way anyone has ever learned anything about anything. So there's that.
Why the hell would I need to define a laboratory? A laboratory is defined by its equipment (which is ad hoc) and scientific method (which is universal). So what is left there for me to define? Government sponsorship?

The scientific method and mindset is the only way to learn collectively, without shared experience. Shared or individual experience is the grey zone of scientific method, because the instrument and researcher are not separate. Yet we use them all the time in daily life with success. Lots of science is about separating the observer and the observed, so that objective observations may be made (medicine, biology, neurology, etc).
Strictly speaking, our perception is not wrong, it's only less efficient for many applications, but reliable in principle. If you absolutely deny the reliability of human perception in principle, then you deny the right to read dials on scientific instruments.

(08-07-2014 03:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You have to put forward coherent testable hypothesis to be taken seriously. Here's where you can start. Any evidence. Of anything. Period. Unless reliable conditions and competent observers are too much like a dreaded "laboratory", which would make any claim of yours self-defeating and incoherent.
There are things which have no place and no name within present paradigm of physics, so they are literally impossible to define as a hypothesis. If I tried it, it would sound very awkward and as always I'd get a lot of scorn.

Nah, there are much more competent researchers than me, even dealing with the same exotic stuff. Yet they fail to gain official recognition. So I'm not going to invest 10,000 hours to fail the same way they did. My guess is, people are so specialized in their fields, that they can't communicate new ideas from field to field. Scientific fields are useful - but deep down the truth is, they are just human constructs. There may be radical ways for raw physics to interact with raw biology, for which we have no name. Damn, if only I could express my questions in a way that doesn't get me ridiculed down to next Tuesday! Human body is an electric unit, but not in the wall plug sense. It is very difficult - and insulting for others! - to admit to myself that others who call themselves experts have no idea what I'm talking about.

Reliable conditions? Anything connected with biology and mental states is volatile and/or elusive. What is needed are specialized instruments. And the only way to get specialized instruments is formulating a hypothesis. Hypothesis uses a language to link commonly known forces (voltage, amperage, magnetism...) to some new phenomenon, which is then put to engineering. If the theoretical language of a scientific field makes no allowance for certain combinations, these instruments just don't get made. Or funded.
The only way to change that is basically wait till someone important dies from old age and then formulate a new grammar in which some phenomena even count as evidence. Evidence only exists within a grammar, within a paradigm. Otherwise they're just odd anomalies, not connected to anything, without meaning.

Yeah, in most sciences this is not so extreme, not so clear-cut, it's possible to compare paradigms if you know both of them very well - but I don't, so I speak generally.

(08-07-2014 03:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You don't even know what plasma is.
My definitions of plasma come from my use for plasma, which is not technical, it's more like a poetry of human experience with plasma, not machine interaction with plasma.
I do have some questions, but I can only put them forward in a form of poetry, because they're multi-disciplinary. I have questions which make sense in the woo language (because this is where the experience is), I must translate them through the language of neurology (which I don't know) into the language of physics (which I don't know) and then back. Social skills in natural sciences are virtually unknown - except bedside manner in medicine. I say poetry, because it's shorter than saying gathering data through qualitative methods.

(08-07-2014 03:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You sound less like a resentful crank when you aren't glibly insulting millions of people for not riding your woo-train.

Just a tip.
What if I know people can't ride my woo-train? It's not easy. I can't insult people for something almost nobody can do.
People who haven't invested their 10,000 hours should not feel insulted when I say they don't know something. The fact that they do, is their problem, not mine. People feel insulted by not being comfortable in their own expertise, or thinking that without their expertise they are nothing, they have no personal value. We can only feel valuable if we were valuable to our parents.

(08-07-2014 03:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There is some truth to that. There is so much stupid and terrible philosophy out there that many people (especially many scientists) ignore the whole field. Likewise philosophers, the terrible ones and also some who are not, are very often utterly scientifically ignorant.
I meant it especially in the field of economy, which is probably the most objective of social sciences, maybe more so than most human statistics. Social sciences are strange.
In natural sciences, it takes generations to have a revolution of a paradigm (Newton-Einstein-quantum physics). In social sciences, multiple paradigms exist simultaneously. Yet in economy, people get caught in ideologies and politics without realizing it.
I wish that scientists, especially economists would at notice when they are speaking to someone of a different paradigm, or language. If they don't, it always gets down to power and slander, who can afford to pull the plug on the other guy while appearing like a fighter against babbling woo-mongers.

(08-07-2014 03:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh God, it's "lol conspiracy" again.

Facepalm

No

Weeping

How about "no".
No, this is NOT conspiracy. Trust me, this is what language does to people. Especially scientific language. Most languages refer to the same things but with different words - we call them German or English and so on. But science has languages that are all English - but the meaning of Newtonian English is subtly different from Einsteinian English. (or I could say Keynesian vs Austrian English) And if that sort of thing goes unnoticed, it has deeply disturbing, tragically hilarious and perverse consequences. It messes people up. Only philosophers of science and language can stop themselves in time, before they cause a diplomatic disaster. That sort of thing can happen even in the rare circumstance when both people are actually competent scientists. In fact, the more they know, the more they are likely to insist their truth is the only possible linguistic expression of reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: