The current scientific paradigm has a deep rooted and suppressed fear of metaphysics.
This repression is inverted into scientific method as a circular form of self-justifying reasoning that claims all truth is merely what can be tested.
The problem occurs that there is no scientific method as to what a "test" is or should contain other than an irrational and oftentimes subjective modeling of boundaries that determines what the "test" is in itself. This provides a euphoric mania of rationalization that gives the scientist not just a role but fundamentally an archetype to fulfill: A prophet roaming through the vast universe of the unknown where his mad ramblings (the test) are understood only to himself but justified to other because of the role he fulfills.
This method of understanding reality by bordering it into a boxed wall is an act of faith similar to fundamentalist religious groups where the subjective will reigns as the expense of group ignorance.
The advanced mathematics and synthetic words of the scientific community has replaced the Latin of the Catholic Clergy in the middle ages as a boundary that does not just seperate knowledge from the commoners but fundmanentally gives rise to an elite power class under a mantle of "complexity and obscurity".
"We are the road to salvation, trust in us" is the modern cry of this theocratic institution whose circular dogma of methodology contradicts its own claims to any progressive truth.
The question is what has science given us of any value without robbing peter to pay paul? Technological progress, on behalf of these oligarch funded institutions of wisdom is merely just an subjective projection of an idea of what convenience and luxury should be...thoughts which pave the way for war and mass hysteria and inevitably place the nature of human condition into the role of metaphysics again as the basis of rational justification.
Science's fear of metaphysics has less to do with metaphysics but rather a projection of its own self-percieve inadequacy where the greatest structure that could be reasoned, brought forth as an idea from the darkness of ignorance, is merely a form of circular reasoning. The great paradox of science is the only constant structure it has observed has been a methodology used to "establish" boundaries of an ever-changing physical universe.
This envy of metaphysics, or rather fear, is that metaphysics as "being que being" continually manifests boundaries which give structure not just to the individual perseption but society as a whole.
"Materialism" is the premise idea of the scientific community, specifically that in the field of physics...the one which does not claim or even know what matter is...what structure does that provide?
My prediction, science is creating a beast which is going to eat itself because of its suppressed fears and an increase in anti-scientific movements will occurs from the "objective evidence" of the world these men gave us given they are in charge.
Science is afraid of Metaphysics
Re: Science is afraid of Metaphysics
Science isn't an entity. It has no feelings - suppressed or overt - or desires or thoughts or plans of any kind.
Science is nothing more than a method of finding out how things work.
On the other hand, I'm not at all convinced that there is any such thing as metaphysics, either.
Just regular-sized physics.
Science is nothing more than a method of finding out how things work.
On the other hand, I'm not at all convinced that there is any such thing as metaphysics, either.
Just regular-sized physics.
Re: Science is afraid of Metaphysics
Philosophy = Metaphysics
It's just a different phrase.
It's just a different phrase.
Re: Science is afraid of Metaphysics
As Skip said, science is just a systematic way of observing and testing observations.
If observations cannot be tested, eg. aspects of subjectivity, then what can scientists legitimately say about them?
There are many things in life that require approaches other than science, other than observation and testing, namely, those things that we cannot test. Events often pass by too quickly for serious observation, reflection and testing so in those situations we may rely on other things - instinct, training, conditioning, emotions, humour and so on.
Note that science has answered many metaphysical questions of the past - about the gods behind storms, volcanoes, eclipses, meteors, or about the evil spirits that inhabited the sick before the discovery of bacteria, viruses and other pathogenic microbes. People have been effectively killed and brought back to life - major operations involving the extreme cooling of blood to reduce brain degeneration.
It's not fear, just rigour.
If observations cannot be tested, eg. aspects of subjectivity, then what can scientists legitimately say about them?
There are many things in life that require approaches other than science, other than observation and testing, namely, those things that we cannot test. Events often pass by too quickly for serious observation, reflection and testing so in those situations we may rely on other things - instinct, training, conditioning, emotions, humour and so on.
Note that science has answered many metaphysical questions of the past - about the gods behind storms, volcanoes, eclipses, meteors, or about the evil spirits that inhabited the sick before the discovery of bacteria, viruses and other pathogenic microbes. People have been effectively killed and brought back to life - major operations involving the extreme cooling of blood to reduce brain degeneration.
It's not fear, just rigour.
Re: Science is afraid of Metaphysics
Word. And, yes, it is a different one - not equal. Metaphysics is not philosophy; it is only a branch of philosophy.
It happens to be the branch that consists entirely of subjective opinions and is not subject to any method of testing or evaluation.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Just is.
What was there before existence began?
Can't know; can't find out.
So -- speculate for the next 500 pages.
Re: Science is afraid of Metaphysics
The scientific method is an extension of human perception as it exists through perception alone, hence it not just measures realities but forms and even maintains certain frameworks of thinking.Skip wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 11:21 pm Science isn't an entity. It has no feelings - suppressed or overt - or desires or thoughts or plans of any kind.
Science is nothing more than a method of finding out how things work.
On the other hand, I'm not at all convinced that there is any such thing as metaphysics, either.
Just regular-sized physics.
Re: Science is afraid of Metaphysics
It is the application of observation plus cognition plus memory plus reasoning to what humans perceive.
Extensions of perception are such devices as eyeglasses, hearing aids, telescopes and sonar.
perception, along with its extensions and enhancements cannot exist as anything else.as it exists through perception alone,
Not realities - quantifiable aspects of just the one physical reality.hence it not just measures realities
A certain framework, yes. That is its function.but forms and even maintains certain frameworks of thinking.
And so?
Re: Science is afraid of Metaphysics
Greta wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 12:20 am As Skip said, science is just a systematic way of observing and testing observations.
If observations cannot be tested, eg. aspects of subjectivity, then what can scientists legitimately say about them?
There are many things in life that require approaches other than science, other than observation and testing, namely, those things that we cannot test. Events often pass by too quickly for serious observation, reflection and testing so in those situations we may rely on other things - instinct, training, conditioning, emotions, humour and so on.
Note that science has answered many metaphysical questions of the past - about the gods behind storms, volcanoes, eclipses, meteors, or about the evil spirits that inhabited the sick before the discovery of bacteria, viruses and other pathogenic microbes. People have been effectively killed and brought back to life - major operations involving the extreme cooling of blood to reduce brain degeneration.
It's not fear, just rigour.
The problem of the scientific method is the very same value system it manifests, that of "rigour". "Rigour" is simply the establishment of definition through the establishment of various limits (abstract definitions, etc.). Science's emphasis on this rigour reflects a deep fear of uncertainity that it fundamentally falls back into itself considering the increase in accuracy (rigour) in one respect causes a simultaneously lack of accuracy or rigour in another. Which greater "clarity" comes a greater degree of uncertainty ironically, as the lines which science draws are based upon a continual act of "localizing" certain phenomenon, hence dividing them from other phenomenon.
Metaphysics, as "being through being", manifests a reflective process where a truth or phenomenon is observed as having these very same reflective properties (as evidenced in its premise) that fundamentally give a unity as structure. We can observe that previous systems of metaphysics mirrored cultures and means of perception where a greater unity existed between man and creation. In the era of modern scientific enquiry we see a greater time of division.
The problem occurs in the respect to not just the nature of truth but how we measure it, as this form of measurement is the means we exist through these truths we observe.
In simpler terms science depends on a divisive unity, metaphysics on a reflective unity, with both requiring a synthesis in our times to eliminate the inherent separation they observe.
The fear of science is one of individuation where an underlying axioms is not just how one "seperates" but separates themselves from other's, which we see as evident in the field itself separating into further fields that do not always necessary relate due to this vary same rigor causing an inherent form of complexity resulting in separation.
The "divide and conquer" method of warfare can be applied to the methodology the scientific community uses today as many of these truths are merely a means not just to conquer the natural world but the human condition itself because of a presupposed collective guilt. This collective guilt is a projection of the powerlessness of mankind in the nature of reality exacerbated by a fear of death. This fear of death, which envelopes the collective zeitgeist of the scientific community, is manifested further under the terms of progress as a linear approach towards point zero where knowledge itself cycles back as a form of divisive annihilation.
In these respects the scientific community does not just fear metaphysics because it has no power over it, but magnifies its own fears because of the unconscious warlike methodology it projects upon both the world and itself. This emphasis on the scientific method can be seen summated years ago under Nazi-Technological Progress where a general madness against the human condition, summated under the german peoples of the time and there losses, gave rise to a Jungian "Wotan/Odin" Archetype (article can delve further into this: http://ahistoryofthepresentananthology. ... -1934.html) of the "Mad Hunter/Shaman". Answers to suffering were not found hence they must be hunted downed and "pinned" or "pierced" by the spear of the intellect known as the measuring line which further mirrors a form of phallicism (line/sphere/phallis follow same forms and function in respect contexts) as a repressed form of masculinity where the individual male embodies a fear of loss (masculine identity).
This Nazism never really went away, as it synthesized with American Freudianism and Easter Marxism resulting in the cold war as an amplified scientific process embodied under a cultural value system resulting in under, in linear terms, projecting into "space" (much in the same manner we see in ancient scripture of man trying to reach the heaven's under the tower of babel) and the synthesis of missile technology as the cultural expression of a "shield wall of spears".
Reverting back to history we can see the divide between metaphysics and science begin in the latter portion of medieval times where the average man felt "helpless" against the reign of theocratic institution. This religious guilt of not just helplessness but an perceived internalized failure to practice and maintain certain moral and ethical codes is mirrored in the cultural fears, mostly in the scientific community that in turn extends through the cultures from this "priest class", by a fear of "reverting back to medieval times" where death was accepted as natural cycle and the condition of humanity was accepted as mortal and part of an inherent universal balance where everything had its place as "one".
This progress of projecting past origins however is doomed to fail as the line extends from point zero and inevitably goes back to this very same point zero. Hence science becomes more arrogant in its facing of this darkness, its own limits, as a system of metaphysics will eventually have to universalize and put it back into its place. It is good to note, from the level of the Jungian Archetype, that in times of trouble Wotan eventually just disappeared...how much more so the institutions which embody this god as the subjective human level?
Re: Science is afraid of Metaphysics
So, gazing into a looking-glass. Okay, but Narcissus died of self-admiration.Metaphysics, as "being through being", manifests a reflective process where a truth or phenomenon is observed as having these very same reflective properties (as evidenced in its premise) that fundamentally give a unity as structure.
Re: Science is afraid of Metaphysics
The reality is that there are minds which cause/create things. Science is completely wrong in the claim that all things work accordingly.
Re: Science is afraid of Metaphysics
Science doesn't make any claims at all.
If any scientists claimed that certain minds can cause or create actual things (as distinct from images and ideas), he would have been wrong, and judged appropriately by his peers. It would also have to have been at least a century ago.
Any allegations in the present tense concerning scientific opinion should reference current scientific opinion.
Re: Science is afraid of Metaphysics
And a microscope or computer is not a looking glass for looking at the particles which compose us? How can science argue any strict objectivity when the photons it studies are the same photons which form the tool or the lens of the eye?Skip wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 8:05 pmSo, gazing into a looking-glass. Okay, but Narcissus died of self-admiration.Metaphysics, as "being through being", manifests a reflective process where a truth or phenomenon is observed as having these very same reflective properties (as evidenced in its premise) that fundamentally give a unity as structure.