Originally posted by mattbballman31
View Post
If you think there's been no progress in metaphysics since Aristotle,
Nearly? So SOME metaphysical arguments have GENERATED new truths about the physical universe? Really?
Can? Hmmm. Is this a modal claim?
Hmmm. All it can do is reformulate a truth in a model . . .
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/theory.html
Science has this ability, metaphysics does not. It can only reformulate the truths contained in our existing models, theories and laws. It has no means of making testable predictions. IOW: Science can put a man on the moon, metaphysics cannot.
Sure. Throwing around a lot of controversial vocabulary. You still haven't told me what you mean by 'truth'. This a HUGE issue in philosophy of science. Another thing. Do you think modeling is necessary for science? Sufficient? Another thing. Do you know data underdetermine theories? How do scientists decide on which theories to cling onto if data doesn't determine the truth of a theory? Predictive success isn't always applicable. I could go on, but you're incompetent and the factory blows up and your neurons go on strike. Oh, and laws. Another biggie you just toss out there like it's no biggie. Tell me. Why were logicians trying so hard to express laws of nature in formal logic? Did the logicians call the physicists to ask how to do this? What about when the philosophers were working on a logic of confirmation theory, while attempting to quantify degrees of confirmation according to a logic of probability theory? Such logics were probably just reformulating truths . . . . in . . . . which physical theory? Which law of nature? What model?
So you said. And so you've said twenty thousand times. Remember that pesky demarcation problem I keep bringing up?
Comment