PcG: that statement about metaphysicians: aren’t all sciences somewhat poetic in their nature. something like an electron doesn’t have a literal meaning to anyone. The meaning it has is purely due to its arousal of certain emotions and visions one has about electrons
PcG: that statement about metaphysicians: aren't all sciences somewhat poetic in their nature. something like an electron doesn't have a literal meaning to anyone.
They may be somewhat poetic in their nature, but the allegation here is that metaphysics is not even a valid form of inquiry. It means to pose questions that are valid, but it falls short into mere poetry.
Science, on the other hand, does as valid questions. Its poetic side is just that - a side.
Now, granted, this view on metaphysics is what logical positivists would hold. Its not necessary that I think metaphysics is a load of garbage.
As for your example of an electron, what do you mean by it "doesn't have a literal meaning to anyone"?
The meaning it has is purely due to its arousal of certain emotions and visions one has about electrons
Again, are you proposing that electrons don't exist, or that we haven't proven their existence yet?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
Science, on the other hand, does as valid questions. Its poetic side is just that - a side.
[/quote]
the supposition that science poses valid questions merely depends on what we consider valid. and that changes all the time. the four fluids theory of classical medicine was a valid question in the middle ages, but not now....it is merely seen as a philosophical phenomenon nowadays..........so is asking questions about those fluids a valid or unvalid question?
[quote]
As for your example of an electron, what do you mean by it "doesn't have a literal meaning to anyone"?
[/quote]
and
[quote]
Again, are you proposing that electrons don't exist, or that we haven't proven their existence yet?
[/QUOTE]
well, elelctron is merely a thought creation to make the world easier to understand. It is merely a (mental?) particle, using which we can explain a lot of phenomena in our world. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist...neither that it does! Of course the electron is very habituated to now, so everyone takes it for granted....but fact remains it is just as elusive as is a tachyon or any other particle that is 'created' to explain a theory.
you split the thread? you've gotta be kidding me.
I left ur original post there......i split it cuz i thought too many posted on this single quote wudn't encourage others to post on the original topic :p
the supposition that science poses valid questions merely depends on what we consider valid. and that changes all the time. the four fluids theory of classical medicine was a valid question in the middle ages, but not now....it is merely seen as a philosophical phenomenon nowadays..........so is asking questions about those fluids a valid or unvalid question?
I dont know enough about the four fluids theory so i can't comment on it much. The answer would depend on what the theory is about. If its about actual fluids as we understand the definition in science - a collection of molecules with no consistently rigid intermolecular forces - then asking any question pertaining to a fluid is a valid question. The reason is, according to logical positivism, that one can verify a question regarding a scientific entitiy (like a fluid), because that question is testable (its verifiable as the positivists say).
What you mean by...'now its seen as a philosophical phenomenon'...that throws me off - which is why i need to know some more information about what this theory is.
As for the electron...the electron would have a literal meaning. because again, even though our senses cannot percieve it directly - it is still in the realm of science. One can devise questions about electrons, design experiments, and get back data that tells us about the existence of these electrons and their behavior. Now what the nature of this electron is - whether its some ball revolving around another ball we call a nucleus (as is taught to small children) or whether its a general range of negative charge within a rough estimated field called an orbital...that's another story. But that does not support an electron having no literary meaning, and only being a product of poetry. I dont know where the idea of an electron first began - perhaps it did begin in poetry - but right now, the meaning of an electron is within the realm of science, not metaphysics, or aesthetics.
Now don't get me wrong. These statements are what the logical positivist would have made. My own opinion on metaphysics is somewhat different, and is still evolving. I think the questions raised by metaphysics are quite valid, because they can be verified...just not always in humanly possible ways.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
The reason is, according to logical positivism, that one can verify a question regarding a scientific entitiy (like a fluid), because that question is testable (its verifiable as the positivists say).
[/quote]
according to this statement the positivists undermine their own existence, cuz they won't be able to postively verify the question "does logical positivism exist?"
[quote]
As for the electron...the electron would have a literal meaning. because again, even though our senses cannot percieve it directly - it is still in the realm of science. One can devise questions about electrons, design experiments, and get back data that tells us about the existence of these electrons and their behavior.
[/quote]
now based on this one cannot prove the electron exists.....it merely stated that the theory that u've build around the phenomeon 'electron' is coherent as far as these experiments/data go.
[quote]
Now what the nature of this electron is - whether its some ball revolving around another ball we call a nucleus (as is taught to small children) or whether its a general range of negative charge within a rough estimated field called an orbital...that's another story. ** But that does not support an electron having no literary meaning, and only being a product of poetry.**
[/quote]
i'd think this actually proves that the electron doesn't have a literal meaning. Of course international conventions ensure that most people envision the same when talking about 'electron', but that doesn't show that an electron is something absolutely existing
[quote]
- but right now, the meaning of an electron is within the realm of science, not metaphysics, or aesthetics.
[/quote]
but that's wat im trying to say, i don't see any clearcut difference between scientific quantities and methaphysical...
i dont either. i was arguing from the logical positivist point of view.
:P
I'm sorry, I'll be back with more. If I'm in the mood.
/\
why would you argue from a logical empiricism point of view, when you like Nessie said : 'don't see any clearcut difference between scientific quantities and methaphysical'
but besides that, lovely arguements :D
came here just to see what u both had to say :p
oh shukria.
i dont know. i was writing a paper on logical positivism. i used nes.
shrugs
:P
^:hoonh: I’ll pretend i didn’t read that
according to this statement the positivists undermine their own existence, cuz they won't be able to postively verify the question "does logical positivism exist?"
Of course - the criticism is that the criterion of verifiability - that which is used to determine if a statement is meaningful or meaningless (metaphysical claims are proved to be meaningless by this criterion) - is not really verifiable in itself. That is if one were to apply the criterion to itself, it would be defeated. However, that criterion is just a definition. Not a statement. 'Logical positivism' is a term, not a statement. So I dont know if logical positivists would treat it the same way they would a full statement.
now based on this one cannot prove the electron exists.....it merely stated that the theory that u've build around the phenomeon 'electron' is coherent as far as these experiments/data go.
Alright o wise one. Then tell me what does the current data on "electron" support if it does not support the concept of an electron. Because in the end, we're relying on empirical experience that is not necessarily direct. We trust our instruments to tell us that the data they spew out is indicative of a particular phenomenon.
Also, how is the current data on electrons leaving you claiming that an electron is just literary?
And why aren't these experiments/data enough?
told ya I'd be back.
:)
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
Of course - the criticism is that the criterion of verifiability - that which is used to determine if a statement is meaningful or meaningless (metaphysical claims are proved to be meaningless by this criterion) - is not really verifiable in itself. That is if one were to apply the criterion to itself, it would be defeated. However, that criterion is just a definition. Not a statement. *'Logical positivism' is a term, not a statement. **So I dont know if logical positivists would treat it the same way they would a full statement.
[/quote]
similarly, metaphysics is a term not a statement. But just as positivists attack the basic statements of metaphysics, metaphysicists can attack those of positivism.
[quote]
Alright o wise one. Then tell me what does the current data on "electron" support if it does not support the concept of an electron. Because in the end, we're relying on empirical experience that is not necessarily direct. We trust our instruments to tell us that the data they spew out is indicative of a particular phenomenon.
Also, how is the current data on electrons leaving you claiming that an electron is just literary?
And why aren't these experiments/data enough?
[/QUOTE]
the current data on electron does support the concept of the electron, I'm not denying that. However, it doesn't prove anything more than only the concept. in other words, it doesn't tell us that the electron exists....it only says that the concept humans have built around electron is solid. Some will conclude from this that the electron exists, but others can justifiably be against it. More generally, the paradigm in which the electron plays a central role consists of statements that sound logical and empirical data seem to support it, but seen from any other paradigm it's all crap..............however, one cannot say that either of these paradigms is the 'right' one.
apologies for jumping in..
i forget who it was but there was some ancient philosopher who used to argue that greece infact might not exist because it was merely a concept of greek senses/measurements/etc.
but all science, all scientific discourse holds relevance within the context of shared perception. emperical data is just a language for representing and sharing percieved truth. does emperical data still require a certain degree of 'metaphysics' to believe it? sure, but only to the extent that we cannot possibly have a better basis for scientific investigation of measurable phenomenon than what we can measure of it.
that said, all percieved truth doesnt necessarily need to be supported by emperical data. and there too, metaphysics plays a crucial role, because more often than not we intuit phenomenon before we measure them. furthemore it sometimes takes a while for us to be able to empericise truths as we percieve them. case in point the electron, string theory, relativity, quantas etc etc etc.. most of the really subtle science happens in the realms of the unobservable, the unquantifiable.
well said ravage, and to strengthen our case of the (metaphysical) theory we gather empirical data