Ted Sider - "Is Metaphysics About the Real World?" (Part 1)

[VSOQQ]

Well, if we start with the distinction of observer-relative and observer-independent classes of facts, metaphysics is fundamental to try to grasp the former with the (cognitive) equipment we happen to have. Denying this is assuming an egocentric worldview, with is peculiar of most scientific disciplines.

[ChorGodOfChunder]

Sider is a cool guy, and a talented philosopher in his own right. But this kind of philosophy is just so bad. Contemporary metaphysics is a joke. People need to start doing something else, for the sake of god.

[rumpranger65]

@ChorGodOfChunder What is bad about metaphysics? Or is it just contemporary metaphysics which you have a problem with while there is some other more archaic form which you approve of?

[mohamedbongfish]

the answer to this question is actually nooooooooooo

[arnoldlayne1991]

@mohamedbongfish incorrect.

[bahramf]

If "real world" is defined as the world no one cares about in philosophy departments at top Universities, than the answer to the question and title of this talk is yes.

[Holmhurst1]

Foolishness

KRN

[nicksynnz]

cool

[Leivinn20]

Nobody will get to be a competent scientist if depend on "trial and error" method.

[Leivinn20]

"Is Metaphysics About the Real World?" . - of course, the metaphysics lets us to explain the real world, it's not possible optimizing of the researching if we don't have a excellent philosophical framework. The "trial and error" method is mediocre and inefficient. I feel sorry for Thomas Edison.

[bahramf]

@Leivinn20 You're a moron. Metaphysics contributes almost nothing to the 'real world' or the scientific method. Don't feel sorry for Edison. Feel sorry for Sider; he does nothing for a living.

[Leivinn20]

@bahramf : Except if you know everything, you need a philosophical framework, per example: we need a lot of agronomic cares to get highly productive crops, however, there are certain farming varieties which don't need a lot of cares, such as: pineapple and cassava because they were selected by native cultures of South America, the natives didn't use mutagen factor, such as used by us currently. Natives did not know to Darwin. I know that NASA never in the life will find ET's, any way.

[bahramf]

@Leivinn20 What do you mean by "know everything"? By definition, we're finite being and fallible beings. We will never know everything. Also, what does metaphysics have to do with agronomy?

[Leivinn20]

@bahramf : According a lot of atheist, the reality change is not smart , can you isolate the most fundamental particle into a perfect vacuum to verify if this moves no-smartly?, don't you think randomness is metaphysical statement which is used as support for atheist worldview?.

[bahramf]

@Leivinn20 Who cares about whether you believe in God or not? As long as you care about people and animals, I'm happy.

[Leivinn20]

@bahramf : God is fundamental for the conception of person about themselves. Nobody talks about oneself and thinks wow! my feeling and thoughts are result from mere randomness., it means, my dreams are not really important.

[bahramf]

@Leivinn20 No, it doesn't. You're committing what's known as the genetic fallacy. Just b/c something comes from randomness does not mean it can become meaningful.

I'm guessing you're a theist. Is Sider?

[bahramf]

@bahramf "can" should be cannot*

[Leivinn20]

@bahramf : That's right, I'm theist (in fact, Christian). What I attempted to say is "human mind doesn't accept that its existence is only a result from natural randomness", it's evidence for supporting we don't come from a long evolutionary chain.

[bahramf]

@Leivinn20 That's not evidence at all. Also, your mind doesn't accept that b/c you're ignorant of science. Smarter minds can and do accept evolution.

Also, that's not a metaphysical argument, it's a psychological argument. We cannot psychologically comprehend the existence of God either, does that mean God doesn't exist?

[Leivinn20]

@bahramf : Although the conceptions of God are unlike around the world and through the history, have not you noticed that idea about God is constant?, I think it's quite contradictory if we assume that our origin is a long aleatory chain of natural events?... how could happen such thing?. Was not our unconscious configured by randomness?, are you sure that "what is the origin of natural laws?" is not a metaphysical question?.

[bahramf]

@Leivinn20 I don't know why you'd bring up natural law theory b/c it's quite a disregarded medieval theory.

Our conception of "God is a projection of the human need for a father". This need is almost universal. It's not a surprise that the conceptions of God are not that variable.

Why is it contradictory to 'assume' (although I haven't assumed this, it's based on all the available evidence) that we came from naturalistic origins?

[Leivinn20]

@bahramf : Regardless your worldview, all analysis or reasoning process start into our consciousness. In this point, you must make a decision, are my conclusions determined by natural laws or are not?. If you conclude that "my reasoning process is really free", then you are a theist (it means, universal cause is spiritual). If you conclude the contrary, then you are atheist.

[bahramf]

@Leivinn20 I conclude the contrary.

I'm certainly not an occasionalist. I think your position is wholly untenable.

[Leivinn20]

@bahramf : Is your answer a result from natural laws or not?.

[bahramf]

@Leivinn20 I'm not sure what you mean by that, but there was no supernatural influence on my answer.

[Leivinn20]

Keep in mind, the assumptions are needed because nobody know everything, the good assumptions provide a excellent base for personality and scientific process.

[bahramf]

@Leivinn20 No, that's not true.

[Leivinn20]

@bahramf : should read: "how could such thing happen?. "

[bitchfacetoni]

Ted Sider is quickly becoming my favorite living philosopher.