Posted: Mar 03, 2018 6:30 pm
John Platko wrote:SafeAsMilk wrote:John Platko wrote:SafeAsMilk wrote:
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.
Well about about this guys metaphysical argument about motion?
It's certainly a nonsensical argument. You can't use the premise that all effects have a cause to claim that there is an effect without a cause.