by whose definition?
prudence is in the mind of the beholder…
neither is truth
-Imp
de’trop
Space is still ambiguous despite the properties science has given it, and no one pretends to know all the answers, but science has begun to understand some of the wonders of space. For instant that it is curved by gravity, that it itself is expanding, and that even in “empty space” quantum fluctionations occur. Not even the best metaphysician had the intellectual prowess to hypothesize these qualities. I understand where you are coming from, I think, but space isn’t the purely metaphysical “entity” that it was pre-Einstein, and I don’t think denying relativity is the way to unlocking the key to knowing “space”. In addition I don’t know your level of awareness of many of the scientific discoveries that pertain to space, but if you’re willing to deny relativity becaue it doesn’t conform to your notion of what space should be, it makes me question your intellectual integrity. But then I remember that Einstein himself denied quantum mechanics because to quote him loosely “god doesn’t play dice with the Universe”
Then you deny relativity and a great portion of modern physics.
You said
I said
Yes, but “space” is not beyond physics as Kant assumed. So by definition( how you defined physics and metaphysics above) it would be more prudent to beleive the scientific explination.
I do not claim science holds truth, but by your defniitions above, science has the say on space.
no, “space” for kant is beyond physics… you are talking about a totally different (einsteinian) space…
neither has the say on anything.
-Imp
Haha, yes I know this is the whole point of my thread, I simply left out a comma. Or it was poorly worded.
Metaphysics is a belief in things beyond physics, and if space is not beyond physics, then… So if we’re talking about what has authority over space, and metaphysics deals with what is beyond physics, and space is not beyond physics, then it would follow that science would deal with space, not metaphysics.
It’s like people believing some cockameme “god looking through pin points in heaven” theory about the stars. As soon as science discovered what the stars actually were, this theory had no credence and was abondoned. They beleived these things because science could not tell them what it was, so they had to speculate about it.
Space is a similar case, for the whole of humanity space was left completely to metaphysics, and some people developed pragmatic theories about what space was. But in the last 50 years sceince has begun investigating space and has showed that it has certain qualities, which contradicts many metaphysical theories. It would be absurd for people to say “no metaphysics is right, and science is wrong”, as science observes and tests it’s predictions to an almost absurd degree, and metaphysics has no such recourse. We can demonstrate time and time again that space is as science predicted. This doesn’t mean science establishes absolute fact, but rather it only establishes scientific fact. And since metaphysics is supposed to clean up after sciences short comings, as the shortcomings dissapear, so should the metaphysics.
Hi, nihilistic, I have a point for you, aswell as everyone I suppose, thats pretty much covered, but people miss it too often.
You made a point on the authority of Science over Philosophy (at least metaphysical) with regards to the explaination of certain issues, the one at hand being time and space.
Physics may have an explaination for the space as you see it, but I see it only as an explaination for the properties of matter we observe. I believe you are mistaken by thinking that Space is what you can trap in jar. I believe Kant is trying to give an explaination for that which contains everything we observe, everything which ‘exists’ in space.
I compare this to a painting. Theories within physics, act much like the critic of a piece of art, they can only try and define the order by which the image is constructed, and what constitutes its ‘artyness’ (lol, lack of a better word this early in the morning). The metaphysical approach, bears no resemblance here. Its not the critic observing the painting, its forming an idea of the canvas itself and how the medium between the canvas and our subjection behaves.
Einstien is great, but he is the art critic. The metaphysical philosopher , is the person that asks not about the painting, but how it fits on its canvas.
authority? how does “science” have authority over anything considering that it is based on a fallacy?
but metaphysics needs none… you believe it or you don’t… it is one of those things that is taken on blind faith… absurd? of course…
but the shortcomings have not disappeared… and as long as science is based on inductive reasoning, science is fatally flawed… permenant shortcomings… metaphysics isn’t supposed to clean up after anything…
science is another thing you take on blind faith… you have never seen the future have you? absurd? of course…
one absurdity is better than another absurdity? I don’t think so…
Certum est, quia impossibile.
-Imp
Imp.
My statements have the contingency that we are talking about metaphysics v. physics. And by definition, your definition, physics has authority over space(rather than metaphysics) because it is not beyond science even if science is a fallacy. What this authority is, is not important. No Imp., I am not saying science is absolute, nor am I saying that it is not based on a fallacy, but this argument has context i.e. metaphysics v. physics. It also has definitions, and unless you propose we throw them out, it might be usefull in this discussion to uphold them. We can sit here all day and talk about how all the faculties of the mind and intuitions are flawed, and how the definitions are arbitrary but insofar as we are comparing intuitions. . . .Remember Imp. that you are talking to a nihilist.
Everything I have said on the subject has the contingency of your definitions…If you are going to define something for all of us, I suggest that you use those definitions throughout the argument.
Thus that is why it can’t be trusted.
By shortcomings I did not mean the fallacy of science, I meant what science cannot even claim to explain. Before Einstein this included space, and so metaphysics tried to explain space. After Einstein science began to encompace space. And you must also keep in mind that science does not claim to be absolute, nor does it claim to be the truth. It only claims to provide us with scientific fact and theory. The fallacies on which science is based on, and what shorcomings it has had, does not change that it has progressed us out of barbarism. If the valueing of science is out of weakness then so be it, if it is out of will to preservation then so be it, but insofar as we wish to survive and progress we must pursue science atleast at some point. It’s not about valuing science, it’s about weather or not you value that you value science.
ok… perhaps a nihilist as far as morals are concerned… and yes, I agree with that… how can you call yourself a nihilist and say physics has priority? a true nihilist would say that nothing has priority… equally arbitrary, equally meaningless… equally nothing… metaphysics and physics, both equally nothing…
and I have done so…
no argument from me there… but you cannot trust “physics” either… and as a nihilist you should understand that both are equally nothing…
it has? LOL! oh joy, but no… we have science to build better tools with which to kill each other… progressed indeed…
no, if we wish to survive and progress, we exersize our will and dominance over those who we consider “non-progressive”… science has nothing to do with it, and as a nihilist, you should understand that science means nothing…
-Imp
Imp.
In so far as I wish to interact with other people in this thread there are certain concessions I have to make. One of which is allowing the words to be defined, and a second is applying my view to those definitions. I suggest you either throw out the definitions, or acknowledge that if space is not beyond physics, it would then be in the domain of science.
Imp. I have said time and time again that what science establishes is nothing, but insofar as I’m going to use your definitions, science has authority over space,(even if that be only an arbitrary authority granted by your definitions) and metapysics doesn’t. As metaphysics deals with what is beyond science, and space is not beyond science.
My friend, without a belief in science one would not jump, because there is nothing tellying you you’re not going to fly off the earth. One would not walk, because there is nothing telling you except for beleif that the ground underneath you will stay solid. One would not advance past the first few moments of his wekness defined life, unless he beleves in certain things. Just because we value science, doesn’t mean science isn’t “nothing”. That goes back to the value behind the value. By nature of being human we value science, in so far as we value progression and life.
fine, space is in the domain of science…
the domain of science is still meaningless…
fine, space is part of the meaninglessness of science…
no, that is not science… that is habit…
-Imp