Then it cannot be shown that a metaphysical premise based upon supposedly self-evident axioms is not demonstrably factual, and so it cannot be shown to arrive at a true conclusion. Oh, wait! According to you, if that can't be shown, I have no reason to think that metaphysics can't lead to true conclusions! It sucks when you can't get your scientism off the ground without refuting yourself.
Then I don't need to answer your question regarding how I know certain reasons are plausible or true before I can know them. Your question presupposed the nonsensical KK principle: that I need to know how I know something before I know it.
Nope. That meta-metaphysics is almost completely done for. The likes of Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized (by James Ladyman and Don Ross) is not taken seriously at all by metaphysicians or the majority of philosophers of science. Their progenitors (Quine, Sellars, et all.) have been almost thoroughly debunked, taking for granted extremely naive views on the epistemology of science, the ontology of science, and the philosophy of nature.
And just so I can make sure you're honest, tell me what the methodologies of metaphysicians are according to metaphysicians working today. Not that you disagree with it! But what they are. I just want to see how much you've read on this. Physicists are typically clueless here. I don't blame them. They should just shut up and calculate. But they don't. They pontificate about matters outside they're expertise.
It's true! You're an adherent of hard scientism. And you can't justify it without appealing to the very metaphysics you denounce as worthless.
Useful in a way inimical to your project of denouncing the methodology of metaphysicians, methodologies that don't fit into the debunked way of merely describing just how scientists do their job, or to clarify scientific language and activity, the idea that philosophy is primarily linguistic and descriptive. That philosophy of science isn't even held by a substantial minority of philosophers of science.
As you couldn't for your secular presuppositions.
Huh? I doubt you know what the words even mean. What does this have to do with the fact that you're a raging scientism-a-holic!
Substantiation is a code-word for scientific demonstration, which is not the only methodology to finding out about reality. So, you're free to believe whatever objective nonsense you choose!
Prove it. Cite me an ancient historian, please. I'm sure not going to take your word for it.
Prove it. And what theory of probability are you using to call such events improbable? Please don't say Hume.
Cite me scholars that agree with you here.
And your argument is an argument from silence.
The argument that justification is solely determined by factors internal to a person is nonsense. Justification depends on additional factors that are external to a person otherwise it is pure subjectivism...or possibly delusion.
No. Metaphysics, whilst valuable in that it can provide the glue to hold the scientific structure together (such as ensure its self-consistency, and help prevent errors of false inference), cannot arrive at new facts about nature. Only science has the methodology to do that.
And just so I can make sure you're honest, tell me what the methodologies of metaphysicians are according to metaphysicians working today. Not that you disagree with it! But what they are. I just want to see how much you've read on this. Physicists are typically clueless here. I don't blame them. They should just shut up and calculate. But they don't. They pontificate about matters outside they're expertise.
"Sticks and stones....."
Philosophy can be useful, as I said. See above.
I'm sure you can find many scholars that support your religious presuppositions.
Huh? I doubt you know what the words even mean. What does this have to do with the fact that you're a raging scientism-a-holic!
I prefer substantiation for what I believe; you're free to believe any subjective nonsense you chose.
Prove it. Cite me an ancient historian, please. I'm sure not going to take your word for it.
For the reason given directly above; even first-hand claims would be suspect given the improbable nature of the claims.
Cite me scholars that agree with you here.
And your argument is an argument from silence.
Comment