-
Features
What is the difference between pseudo science and metaphysics
- Thread starter MxM111
- Start date
PyramidHead
Contributor
Not all pseudoscience is metaphysics.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Here you can find a link (purely for example) to a paper on metaphysics.
I'm not sure how that paper would be similar to pseudo-science (but then, what do you mean by "pseudo-science?". Regardless of whether the author turns out to be correct, the author does a lot of conceptual analysis - which can be tested by means of looking for counterexamples, etc. - argues for his view by means of examples, etc. Also, he comments on some of the history of recent philosophy, and in particular metaphysics, especially focused on some specific analyses of languages, concepts, etc.
That strikes me as very different from, say, homeopathy, or any other paradigmatic example of pseudo-science.
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Surely speudo-science must be bad for you, or nearly always bad, while doing any metaphysics at all should be good for your intellectual capabilities. I recommend it even though I disagree with most of what I've read. Be careful not doing an overdose of it though.
EB
Pseudoscience is something presented as if it were science, but which either isn't science, or contains logical flaws that render it such poor science that it is deemed not to deserve the term.
Metaphysics is a class of philosophical topics that draws its name from the books of Plato. Anything coming after 'Physics' in the sequence was deemed metaphysics. In practice it tends to refer to questions of definition and logical models of the conceptual world.
Science is about building models of the physical world through extrapolation from empirical observation.
Metaphysics is a class of philosophical topics that draws its name from the books of Plato. Anything coming after 'Physics' in the sequence was deemed metaphysics. In practice it tends to refer to questions of definition and logical models of the conceptual world.
Science is about building models of the physical world through extrapolation from empirical observation.
Nice statement.
Then how then it is different from philosophy?
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
It only sets out the parameters for disciplines of philosophy like ethics, logic, morality, its the defining of the 'good life'?
It's a subset of philosophy. Hence it has a subsection on the philosophy boards.
It also has a more casual usage. Discussing the metaphysics of a particular subject, such as history, is a discussion and analysis of the underlying principles and theories and methodologies of history. That may be a proper philosophical take on what can and can't be said based on these ideas, but it could just be a discussion of historical methods and how they compare
Philos
Veteran Member
Mx and Togo,
I often hear students saying "I'm doing Meta" or "That's Meta". From this I think they mean that "Meta" is thinking about the subject in hand rather than doing it. It's like taking a step back to a different level of thought. So the question 'What is the sum of 2+2?' is a question in math. The question 'What is math?' is a question about math and thus Meta.
The clearest way I can thing of metaphysics is as rationalist philosophy (hence Plato) and concerns apriori principles as you have explained above. My old philosophy prof used to say that it could be done in an armchair.
Alex.
Dutch_labrat
Junior Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 65
- Location
- Leiden, The Netherlands
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, humanist, liberal
Physics is sex, metaphysics is wanking, pseudoscience is watching two flies mate.
Underseer
Contributor
Is this forum a good place to talk about the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism? Because if I run into one more Christian or Muslim who gets those two confused, I think I'm going to vomit.
Underseer
Contributor
If methodological naturalism is true, I cannot appeal to a supernatural entity to make you vomit.
It's mostly Christians who get methodological naturalism mixed up with metaphysical naturalism, such that I suspect that somewhere out there is a prominent Christian leader who doesn't understand the difference.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
make that "virtual" flies and you have a winner!
If methodological naturalism is true, I cannot appeal to a supernatural entity to make you vomit.
It's mostly Christians who get methodological naturalism mixed up with metaphysical naturalism, such that I suspect that somewhere out there is a prominent Christian leader who doesn't understand the difference.
Most of the people I see who get the two confused are people trying to argue for replacing metaphysics with science (sic) - a position that really only makes sense if you get the two confused. Then again, I don't hang out on the same boards, and don't see many religious arguing their beliefs, so that doesn't say much about the proportions.
I suspect it's not a Christian leader, it's the religious taking advantage of poor science teaching that doesn't distinguish between the two.
Underseer
Contributor
I see a lot of Christian apologists who passionately argue against all of science as a means of knowing the truth because methodological naturalism requires all scientists to be atheist, therefore all of science is false, therefore creationism is true. No matter how many times I correct them that they are getting methodological naturalism mixed up with metaphysical naturalism, they simply ignore anything I say and continue to argue that science requires atheism (methodological naturalism), therefore everything produced by science is false.
I feel bad for correcting them because they seem so proud of themselves for knowing an impressive-sounding phrase like "methodological naturalism."
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
Isn't the case that methodological naturalism, the viewpoint if not the term itself, was advocated by some, maybe just a few, Christian thinkers at some point in time... back in the Middle Ages?
I'm sure you could find some perfectly respectable Christian thinkers, still alive today, who would also insist on methodological naturalism. Well, at least for most phenomena. I think the emphasis was originally not to overdo God and therefore to limit reaching for the God-did-it explanation only when trully spiritual matters were in play.
However, I guess the creation of the universe does qualify as a trully momentous event with spiritual import! But you could maybe cut a deal. If you could present the creation of the universe as some pretty routine event with many such creations occurring pretty much all the time like, say, soap bubbles in your bath. Then the need to reach for God-did-it disappears, at least from the point of view of those Christian thinkers who do support a healthy dose of methodological naturalism.
The deal then would be for you to admit that science could not possibly answer the question of the creation of the whole of the physical reality, pretty much leaving the issue to a few fearless but deranged minds.
What do you say?
EB
Last edited:
Whereas we regularly see people on this forum drifting into the philosophy boards, and arguing against philosophy as a means of knowing the truth because methodological naturalism requires empirical evidence and philosophy doesn't involve empirical evidence, therefore philosophy is wrong and science is right.
Just like visitors here argue that truth requires empiricism (methodological naturalism), and therefore everything produced by philosophy is false by definition. They're making the same mistake, confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.
My guess is they're just copying the arguments of their opponents.
I'm not doubting your experience - I just don't hang out on the same boards that you do. I have met a fair few Christians who have no problem with science whatsoever, recognising it as a useful method for investigating the universe, rather than the definition of truth itself, and thus seeing no conflict between the two.
WAB
Veteran Member
I believe that's Aristotle, not Plato.