Posted: Mar 03, 2018 5:18 pm
John Platko wrote:SafeAsMilk wrote:John Platko wrote:SafeAsMilk wrote:
I was referring to evidence of acumen, not metaphysics. But if you're saying that metaphysics is indistinguishable from creative writing, I won't work too hard to dissuade you.
The difference is that people engaged in creative writing usually know they are making shit up while those engaged in metaphysics often believe they have found a truth of which they are devoid of all doubt - and they think everyone else should be too. And good luck getting them to explain coherently what justifies this doubtlessness.
I don't know if that goes for every proponent of metaphysics, though it obviously applies to jamest's. The problem I see is that if you want to use metaphysics to say something about the physical world, you have to at least have a grasp of what we know about the physical world. Jamest has made plain his ignorance of this more times than I could count, in fact that ignorance is usually the basis of his metaphysical BM's.
Do you have an example where someone uses metaphysics as a sensible mode of explaination for anything close to what Jamest wants to use if for?
The examples I know of are seriously flawed and the people pushing them refuse to acknowledg the flaws. They often misinterpret the known physics on the subject, even when a known expert in the field is telling them they are misunderstanding the physics! But maybe I've missed some good use of metaphysics.
I don't really run in the metaphysics crowd, so no, I don't have an example. I don't think you could make jamest's specific argument without misunderstanding the physics. Whether that applies to all other metaphysical arguments, I can't say.