Cito di Pense wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

jamest wrote:since all data relates to the relations between observable entities, which [in principle] have fuck all to do with 'reality'.

You keep asserting this, James, but that's all you ever do. And what's more, until you have data to support your premises, assertions is all you'll ever have.

So, are hallucinations relations between observable entities? This could tell us a lot about how jamest conflates observation and experience and data. You'll never see him attempt to comment on this, except to make statements about all data, when the whole point is to discard some data. James can't bring himself to discard anything because that might involve discarding god. It's arbitrary, too, as a means of keeping the faith by keeping everything.

This is one of the reasons I keep the six foot cockroach in the wings, waiting to be rolled out.

Oh, his exercise in asserting that only the data he can press into apologetic service constitutes purportedly "relevant" or "valid" data, is classic supernaturalist discoursive duplicity at its finest. He still tries to pretend that the little problem I've unveiled for his precious "metaphysics" doesn't exist, namely that any metaphysical theory that doesn't produce an account for observational data is necessarily incomplete, and incomplete in a manner that renders it useless for erecting assertions about the purported "irrelevance" of said observational data. The moment that deficit is remedied, however, then by definition, that metaphysical theory will start generating testable assertions, at which point, observational data starts to become relevant to at least some of the metaphysical claims made by that theory. Watching him cling desperately to the idea that this problem somehow doesn't constitute "Game Over" for many of his assertions, is so amusing. Similarly amusing was his attempt to play an apologetic "get out of jail" card with respect to his own use of observational evidence to support his own metaphysical claims, by chanting the "quale" mantra, as if this somehow magically conferred a special status upon the observational data he wished to press into apologetic service, whilst excluding anything that drove a tank battalion through his assertions.

Calilasseia wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

jamest wrote:since all data relates to the relations between observable entities, which [in principle] have fuck all to do with 'reality'.

You keep asserting this, James, but that's all you ever do. And what's more, until you have data to support your premises, assertions is all you'll ever have.

So, are hallucinations relations between observable entities? This could tell us a lot about how jamest conflates observation and experience and data. You'll never see him attempt to comment on this, except to make statements about all data, when the whole point is to discard some data. James can't bring himself to discard anything because that might involve discarding god. It's arbitrary, too, as a means of keeping the faith by keeping everything.

This is one of the reasons I keep the six foot cockroach in the wings, waiting to be rolled out.

Oh, his exercise in asserting that only the data he can press into apologetic service constitutes purportedly "relevant" or "valid" data, is classic supernaturalist discoursive duplicity at its finest. He still tries to pretend that the little problem I've unveiled for his precious "metaphysics" doesn't exist, namely that any metaphysical theory that doesn't produce an account for observational data is necessarily incomplete, and incomplete in a manner that renders it useless for erecting assertions about the purported "irrelevance" of said observational data. The moment that deficit is remedied, however, then by definition, that metaphysical theory will start generating testable assertions, at which point, observational data starts to become relevant to at least some of the metaphysical claims made by that theory. Watching him cling desperately to the idea that this problem somehow doesn't constitute "Game Over" for many of his assertions, is so amusing. Similarly amusing was his attempt to play an apologetic "get out of jail" card with respect to his own use of observational evidence to support his own metaphysical claims, by chanting the "quale" mantra, as if this somehow magically conferred a special status upon the observational data he wished to press into apologetic service, whilst excluding anything that drove a tank battalion through his assertions.

I think it's even more basic than that. James is all about the kind of language thou shalt be forced to use if thou wishest King James to deign to converse with thee. The sad fact there is that jamest does not know how properly to decline his personal pronouns. Absent that, you'll be pelted with spitballs about parrots and truth mills.

So, i've been wondering... what exactly would metaphysical evidence look like? What is metaphysical evidence?

I'm content with my hypothesis; Imagined potential, from an observed undetermined phenomena.

That's not a hypothesis, it's a word salad, and a grammatically incorrect one, at that.

Always so full of contestation hack.

Two questions:
1. Why So Serious?
2. Care to elaborate?

It seems reasonable to me.

Templeton wrote:Always so full of contestation hack.

Always so full of shit, Templeton.

1. Why So Serious?

What makes you think I'm serious?

Ah, yet another amateur internet psychiatrist.

2. Care to elaborate?

What more needs to be said? The information was conveyed efficiently and in its entirety.

Spoken like a true troll.
Elaborate on the topic if you can hack.
We know you don't agree, you make that obvious with your nonsensical rants, but Why do you disagree?
Formulate an argument. RS is the place for it. Just make sure of your aim, young fella.
Perhaps you have a better idea?

Chrisw wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Lets' fucking drop the metaphysics. It's all philosophy. Metaphysics has shit on it's face. I can't abide that.

I think metaphysics is a word that carries a lot of baggage. It seems to be used quite sparingly by contemporary philosophers, perhaps for that reason.

If someone comes on here and argues that dualism must be wrong or that subjective idealism leads to solipsism or that free will does or does not exist people are usually able to respond rationally. We may even have a good discussion. But if he dares to use the word "metaphysics" (because these issues come under the heading of metaphysics) certain people around here will start throwing their toys out of the pram. The word itself, rather than the things it refers to, is a problem for some.

I think you have to consider the way that metaphysics has been introduced into topics around here and the manner of it's chief proponents in doing so. It is often used like some mystical pseudo-intellectual cock to beat others who either don't follow the language used by these self appointed experts in contemporary navel gazing or who refuse to accept the very point of something whose utility they cannot adequately explain to us plebs, often because to explain it in simple language would be to expose it for the pointless and tiresome shit that it is.
It isn't so much that I throw my toys out, its more that I won't play their game.

Templeton wrote:Spoken like a true troll.

Templeton wrote:Elaborate on the topic if you can hack.
We know you don't agree, you make that obvious with your nonsensical rants,

You do know what the words obvious and nonsensical mean, right?

Templeton wrote: but Why do you disagree?
Formulate an argument. RS is the place for it. Just make sure of your aim, young fella.
Perhaps you have a better idea?

Once again failing to understand the burden of proof.
You, Templeton, are making the claim, it is therefore your job to defend it, not for other to come up with alternative ideas.
Furthermore, when someone only posts gibberish word salad, like you did in the original post Hack responded to, there is no need for an argument. One only needs to point out that what you posted makes no sense.

Templeton wrote:Spoken like a true troll.

Luke 4:23

Elaborate on the topic if you can hack.

I've already said all that needs to be said on the topic. If you have an issue with anything I've said, I'll be happy to educate you some more.

We know you don't agree, you make that obvious with your nonsensical rants, but Why do you disagree?

What nonsensical rants? Speaking of nonsensical, what is it you think I don't agree with?

Formulate an argument. RS is the place for it.

I've already done that earlier in the thread. Feel free to pick those apart if you like. My position has been made perfectly clear, while yours...

Just make sure of your aim, young fella.

What the holy fuck is that supposed to mean? Nothing wrong with my aim.

And drop the 'young fella'. For that matter, you can stop calling me 'hack'. I'm not your friend, I don't like you, and that's reserved for those I have more than contempt for. Got it?

Perhaps you have a better idea?

I have many better ideas than this frankly asinine idea that there can be any such thing as metaphysical evidence, though the torture to which the word has been put in this thread makes me wonder if many others here actually understand what it means.

Agrippina wrote:-

"if metaphysics, then God."

Yes. And No. In other words, this is how metaphysics has been traditionally abused. And why skeptics hate metaphysics. Understandable I think. But we must get past it. Think on experiments about light. Design an experiment that demonstrates light is particles and you have photons. Design an experiment that show light as waves and you have waves. So science does not help here, but the metaphysics of science does. It helps to know that science is not about explanation, but is about description and prediction.
This has been the problem with science since the beginning. Because religion offered [stupid, false] explanation, it was incumbent on science to offer its own explanations. In other words, science was 'trolled" by the demand for explanations. It had to provide them, because people expected explanations. A bad explanation is [apparently] better than none at all. But suppose there are no explanations? Suppose things are as they are with no cause or reason behind them? You have to accept quantum mechanics "as is".
No one wants to develop a non-theistic metaphysics because it has traditionally been a tool for religious apologetics. I see no good reason why this HAS to be so. Just think of [scientific ] metaphysics as one huge, super-duper meta-study about meta-studies in science.

Edit: And this is why god is the ultimate null hypothesis. Why science does not include god in its models. God is the ultimate non-descriptor, non-predictor, and the ultimate non-explanation.

Thomas
Pay close attention to why you are responding the way you do.
You seem to have an axe to grind with me. Engage the discussion Thomas
You see, YF #2, I've presented an opinion on this topic in previous posts, which you obviously haven't read, and while this is entertaining for me, really I've no attachment with it. I could continue to defend the argument and in fact I have and it really is a solid position. Although I don't really care. Engage the discussion Thomas


Now, on to you young Mr. hack.

Don't get your dander up. If you've a disagreement on my position, please, by all means feel free to crush it to you hearts content. You seem to think you know what it is I'm discussing. If you do, then have at it.
I enjoy your rants, they're like watching drunk teenagers having hissy fits.
Remember, watch what you're aiming at, it"s not what you think.

Templeton wrote::clap:

I'm content with my hypothesis; Imagined potential, from an observed undetermined phenomena.

Seriously, what the fuck does this even mean?

On point: There is no such thing as metaphysical evidence.

There is simply evidence, redundantly called empirical evidence. Evidence can have metaphysical implications, but that doesn't make it metaphysical evidence. It's still just (empirical)evidence. There is no other kind, so to call it empirical really is redundant.

Arguments aren't evidence, they're just arguments (whether "internally consistent", "valid", "sound" or not). Arguments that use evidence as part of their premises are still just arguments, they're still not metaphysical evidence.

Just because an argument is internally consistent or logically valid, it doesn't become evidence in favor of some proposition. It's still just an argument in favor of the proposition. We don't have "evidence" for some statement just because some obscure asshole makes internally consistent and valid arguments in support of it. That would be absurd, since we could simply make up arguments with billions of assumed/unsupported premises but valid structure, and then declare we have "tonnes of evidence" or "billions of pieces of evidence" for the proposition.

It's idiotic. We have not received evidence that gives us greater certainty in the truth of some proposition, simply because someone has made an internally consistent argument for that proposition. We still have to actually look at the argument with the premises and determine whether those premises are true and if the conclusion follows, which could make the argument sound. If the argument is sound, well then we just have a sound argument. The conclusion is true.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
This has been the problem with science since the beginning. Because religion offered [stupid, false] explanation, it was incumbent on science to offer its own explanations. In other words, science was 'trolled" by the demand for explanations. It had to provide them, because people expected explanations.

Perhaps it is to do with the way the brain works. We instinctively ascribe agency. So it is much easier to think in terms of why rather than how. When teaching, lists of known facts are poorly remembered, a narrative connecting said facts facilitates memory. Finally if it were not for such narratives it would be difficult to define questions worth answering - how for example does one with limited funds choose which 'how' to answer?

Pebble wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
This has been the problem with science since the beginning. Because religion offered [stupid, false] explanation, it was incumbent on science to offer its own explanations. In other words, science was 'trolled" by the demand for explanations. It had to provide them, because people expected explanations.

Perhaps it is to do with the way the brain works. We instinctively ascribe agency. So it is much easier to think in terms of why rather than how. When teaching, lists of known facts are poorly remembered, a narrative connecting said facts facilitates memory. Finally if it were not for such narratives it would be difficult to define questions worth answering - how for example does one with limited funds choose which 'how' to answer?

Indeed, what Dennett described as the "Intentional Stance". But the "IS" should be somewhat tunable. A creature that flees from the lion at the waterhole will probably not do as well as a creature who can evaluate the lion's intentions at the waterhole. Although we have the IS, we can still judge if the lion is hungry, or just wants a drink. Provided the lion is far away enough so we can flee if we are wrong, we too can drink in reasonable safety. I imagine other animals can tune their IS also. An animal that is too skittish will almost never drink, effectively giving it the same chances of survival as if it was in the lion's jaws.