Why Metaphysics fails to be adequate?

[sprinkles]

I was just thinking about this.

Why is it that people seem to have a propensity for searching out some unknown and yet to be discovered force as some sort of explanation for phenomena? Such that it even leads researchers to chase red herrings basically to disprove something that is already most likely dubious?

It's like leading everybody astray. It's like saying "LOOK! Look at this pink dragon that isn't there!" and everybody looks, looks away from what is readily apparent, looks for the pink dragon and says "Well I don't see it."

What is this preference for chasing nothings rather than taking the phenomena that we already know quite well and possibly understanding it in a different way?

I believe this is why psychic experiments and ESP experiments fail, because people take their eyes off what they can actually discern to start looking for that pink dragon. It's being misled from what is already sufficient and comprehensible to look for something that probably isn't there. That's called being gullible. And the opponents gleefully take it up to prove that the thing that isn't there still isn't there.

 

[this is only temporary]

Well, part of the problem is we don't even fully understand physics yet, let alone metaphysics. And that's physicists I'm talking about, not ordinary people who have trouble remembering what a hypotenuse is or balancing their (possibly nonexistent) checkbooks. I've read articles recently saying that something along the lines of 95% of the universe is composed of dark matter which we can't even see or detect, and physicists are trying to understand dark matter and prove that it exists currently. Using math. Which 99% of the people living today can't even understand.

Also, actual physicists get gulled into looking for things that may or may not even be there -- Einstein spent a large portion of his career trying to prove that ether existed. If people like Einstein get misled regularly there is no hope for the rest of us, but we might as well not get too upset about it.

 

[sprinkles]

Well, part of the problem is we don't even fully understand physics yet, let alone metaphysics. And that's physicists I'm talking about, not ordinary people who have trouble remembering what a hypotenuse is or balancing their (possibly nonexistent) checkbooks. I've read articles recently saying that something along the lines of 95% of the universe is composed of dark matter which we can't even see or detect, and physicists are trying to understand dark matter and prove that it exists currently. Using math. Which 99% of the people living today can't even understand.

Also, actual physicists get gulled into looking for things that may or may not even be there -- Einstein spent a large portion of his career trying to prove that ether existed. If people like Einstein get misled regularly there is no hope for the rest of us, but we might as well not get too upset about it.

Yes I was thinking of the luminiferous aether as well.

Dark matter may not be far off from being detected, in some nonlinear fashion, who knows. Neutrinos used to be just mathematical and undetectable until they figured out in the 50's how to do an experiment with getting a positron and electron to annihilate each other and release detectable gamma rays.

 

[Skarekrow]

Well, part of the problem is we don't even fully understand physics yet, let alone metaphysics. And that's physicists I'm talking about, not ordinary people who have trouble remembering what a hypotenuse is or balancing their (possibly nonexistent) checkbooks. I've read articles recently saying that something along the lines of 95% of the universe is composed of dark matter which we can't even see or detect, and physicists are trying to understand dark matter and prove that it exists currently. Using math. Which 99% of the people living today can't even understand.

Also, actual physicists get gulled into looking for things that may or may not even be there -- Einstein spent a large portion of his career trying to prove that ether existed. If people like Einstein get misled regularly there is no hope for the rest of us, but we might as well not get too upset about it.

Yes I was thinking of the luminiferous aether as well.

Dark matter may not be far off from being detected, in some nonlinear fashion, who knows. Neutrinos used to be just mathematical and undetectable until they figured out in the 50's how to do an experiment with getting a positron and electron to annihilate each other and release detectable gamma rays.

You cannot discount Einstein’s study of luminiferous aether...even though, he was not able to prove it’s existence, it was what ultimately led him to the theory of relativity.
Robert Boyle contended that even in a vacuum the space still holds particles...this he called aether...and was he wrong? Isaac Newton was only a bit off when he thought that luminiferous aether sent light traveling in a vibration through it, but was correct that light was made up of particles. James Bradley attempted to measure stellar parallax and failed but instead ended up discovering another effect, stellar aberration.
There are more examples....but my point is, I don’t believe that anyone wasted their time trying to prove that aether existed. They in fact, made some very important discoveries while trying to prove the yet to be proven....and yes, I said yet to be proven...what if aether is just another name for antimatter? Just as you said, the scientists are quite sure of it’s existence but have yet show proof. For decades certain people have searched for the Higgs-Boson particle to no avail...until recently.
I don’t think chasing a “pink dragon” is ever a bad thing. Can you show me solid proof of the Buddhist teachings that you believe sprinkles? Just because you cannot, does not make them any less true...only undiscovered. Many of the things that quantum physics is looking into now blur the lines between science and philosophy...and I think that is where it should be...you have to push the limit to make the discoveries.

 

[Cornerstone]

I'm fairly sure there is not 'nothing' anywhere. There are no gaps. Its all something.
Not matter, sure. But there is always something unless there is absolutely nothing.
Absolutely nothing is infinite possibility; it is pure consciousness in a state of unconsciousness.

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

It's much easier to decide you already know all there is to know about the known things in your life, such as gravity, mass, energy, velocity etc.

It feels so good for intellectuals to believe they are in control of reality, as they have mastered these aspects of life and now they are easily dealt with and any discussion about them seems petty and a waste of time because of course they already know everything.

Big egos. That's my take on it.

 

[Odyne]

Also, actual physicists get gulled into looking for things that may or may not even be there -- Einstein spent a large portion of his career trying to prove that ether existed. If people like Einstein get misled regularly there is no hope for the rest of us, but we might as well not get too upset about it.

Misled by who?

 

[this is only temporary]

You cannot discount Einstein’s study of luminiferous aether...even though, he was not able to prove it’s existence, it was what ultimately led him to the theory of relativity.

I understood Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity before he started searching for luminiferous aether.

Einstein's views on the aether[edit]
In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether. This was further elaborated by Einstein in some semi-popular articles (1918, 1920, 1924, 1930).

Many previously accepted theories in physics that many very smart people spent a lot of time trying to "prove" have turned out to be either flat wrong or only partially right. Not to imply their efforts are a waste of time at all, usually what winds up happening is their work builds off one another until people have a fairly good idea of how things work.

 

[this is only temporary]

Misled by who?

Not deliberately misled by a person, mistaken or with an incomplete understanding of how things work. A simple example is how people tried for years to explain the universe based on an assumption that Earth was at the center of it, and until they corrected this incomplete understanding, they tried to explain things in ways that turned out to be red herrings. They were "misled", but not as part of a deliberate plot. By simple ignorance.

(Unless you count being excommunicated and persecuted by the Catholic church, but I don't even want to go there.)

 

[Skarekrow]

I understood Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity before he started searching for luminiferous aether.



Many previously accepted theories in physics that many very smart people spent a lot of time trying to "prove" have turned out to be either flat wrong or only partially right. Not to imply their efforts are a waste of time at all, usually what winds up happening is their work builds off one another until people have a fairly good idea of how things work.

I could be wrong as to when he studied what....but the point I was attempting to make was that scientists and the great thinkers of mankind follow false leads all the time...it’s the scientific method...the process of elimination. If Einstein thought that there could be something to the idea of luminiferous aether then who am I or anyone else to tell arguably one of the top five physicists ever alive that investigation into it’s existence was a pointless exercise? By looking into things that are not yet fully understood is the only way we can further our human knowledge of such a thing....even if it is to prove that it doesn’t exist.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

Yes.

The point I am making is avoidance of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and the clustering illusion. The sharpshooter fallacy is in reference to shooting at something a lot then painting the target around your best cluster and calling yourself a sharpshooter.

Dark matter as already mentioned is not 'proven' for example, but it's markedly different from luminiferous aether in that it isn't just a reasonable assumption - what we can observe actually indicates a presence of something.

Dark matter is like finding a housecat that weighs as much as an elephant but still only has the visible mass of the house cat. Where did the rest come from? It must have come from somewhere since there's a clear discrepancy.

Luminiferous aether on the other hand was merely an indirect and arbitrary hypothesis - they decided that light must have a medium to travel through, since other things travel through mediums (like sound and vibration) but this is an erroneous assumption and wasn't based on evidence provided by light itself.

 

[Skarekrow]

@Skarekrow

Yes.

The point I am making is avoidance of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and the clustering illusion. The sharpshooter fallacy is in reference to shooting at something a lot then painting the target around your best cluster and calling yourself a sharpshooter.

Dark matter as already mentioned is not 'proven' for example, but it's markedly different from luminiferous aether in that it isn't just a reasonable assumption - what we can observe actually indicates a presence of something.

Dark matter is like finding a housecat that weighs as much as an elephant but still only has the visible mass of the house cat. Where did the rest come from? It must have come from somewhere since there's a clear discrepancy.

Luminiferous aether on the other hand was merely an indirect and arbitrary hypothesis - they decided that light must have a medium to travel through, since other things travel through mediums (like sound and vibration) but this is an erroneous assumption and wasn't based on evidence provided by light itself.

I’m not saying that it exists....my point was you shouldn’t look into the furthering of knowledge as - this or that having more importance, when it all leads to the furthering or our own knowledge....physics or metaphysics....science or religion....psychology or philosophy. Einstein believed that it was relevant to explore the possibility that it could exist....how is the exploration into that possibility or any other less important than those that have been proven to have scientific value? How would you know what had or didn’t have scientific value if no one bothered?

 

[sprinkles]

I’m not saying that it exists....my point was you shouldn’t look into the furthering of knowledge as - this or that having more importance, when it all leads to the furthering or our own knowledge....physics or metaphysics....science or religion....psychology or philosophy. Einstein believed that it was relevant to explore the possibility that it could exist....how is the exploration into that possibility or any other less important than those that have been proven to have scientific value? How would you know what had or didn’t have scientific value if no one bothered?

I'm not saying that one shouldn't bother.

I'm saying we can be a little more thoughtful with what we bother with. Take ESP for example - I'm not saying don't look for it. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is look for it in what you can see first.

It's like being a detective. He looks at what is present at the crime scene first and pieces it together in various ways, like a puzzle with no clear solution. Or it could be like making anagrams out of Scrabble tiles. You are looking at the same tiles but understanding them in different ways.

As with ESP experiments, it wouldn't hurt to use the Scrabble tiles that we can already measure, the known energies in the environment, to possibly explain it, before we put the cart in front of the horse and set somebody down and say "read my mind!" under the assumption that this is what ESP actually is, and when they can't do it they end up saying "There must be a radio somewhere interfering with my perception"

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

Also, look at it this way. Do you xray a person's foot to check for a heart problem?

What I'm talking about is similar, except in this case we don't even know if it is a foot or a kneecap or a tentacle that we're xraying, and furthermore we also aren't even sure if it's a heart problem that we're actually looking for. How do you even have a reference to determine what you have found in a case like that?

 

[Cornerstone]

Also, look at it this way. Do you xray a person's foot to check for a heart problem?

No, but it would be equally foolish to only look at the heart organ itself.

 

[Skarekrow]

I'm not saying that one shouldn't bother.

I'm saying we can be a little more thoughtful with what we bother with. Take ESP for example - I'm not saying don't look for it. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is look for it in what you can see first.

It's like being a detective. He looks at what is present at the crime scene first and pieces it together in various ways, like a puzzle with no clear solution. Or it could be like making anagrams out of Scrabble tiles. You are looking at the same tiles but understanding them in different ways.

As with ESP experiments, it wouldn't hurt to use the Scrabble tiles that we can already measure, the known energies in the environment, to possibly explain it, before we put the cart in front of the horse and set somebody down and say "read my mind!" under the assumption that this is what ESP actually is, and when they can't do it they end up saying "There must be a radio somewhere interfering with my perception"

Can you prove that Schrodinger's cat exists when inside the box? You cannot follow strict scientific rules for a quantum or metaphysical quandary. That doesn’t make it less important to explore.

 

[sprinkles]

Can you prove that Schrodinger's cat exists when inside the box? You cannot follow strict scientific rules for a quantum or metaphysical quandary. That doesn’t make it less important to explore.

That's right, but you've still got a cat in a box to explore. It's a thing in front of you to wonder about.

Personally I don't really know anything save for approximations and possibly useful models. I like the idea of chaos and nobody really knowing anything, but I just know what I know, and know what I don't know, and I know that I know what I think I know is probably just that - what I think I know.

But humans like to think and talk with each other and talk about thinking and think about talking and think about thinking and talk about talking, and truths, and what they know, and if I want to fit in with this long standing tradition then I have to at least pretend that a few things make sense.

Edit:
And long story short - that don't befront me long as I get my rent next Friday.

 

[Skarekrow]

That's right, but you've still got a cat in a box to explore. It's a thing in front of you to wonder about.

Personally I don't really know anything save for approximations and possibly useful models. I like the idea of chaos and nobody really knowing anything, but I just know what I know, and know what I don't know, and I know that I know what I think I know is probably just that - what I think I know.

But humans like to think and talk with each other and talk about thinking and think about talking and think about thinking and talk about talking, and truths, and what they know, and if I want to fit in with this long standing tradition then I have to at least pretend that a few things make sense.

Well sure there are “laws” of nature and of the universe. But I 100% believe that things like ESP or other psychic phenomena will one day be explained using science that has not yet been thought of or fully explored yet. What was “magic” in the past, has been explained in modern day....so why discount said “magic” that doesn’t have an explanation yet?
Our perception is so incredibly limited as humans...if you really think about it there is such a minuscule percentage that we can say we solidly know as fact. Even that “factual” information is not fallible. Instead of focusing like you said on those things that we can see and perceive...I would wager that if the proper resources were allotted to study those things that one would call “metaphysical” we would get some real tangible proof. It’s all about what society deems worthy of study...people are more interested in losing weight, curing diseases, and so on. People want the scientists to develop better football helmets so their beloved players don’t get brain damage.
They focus on inventing things like the iglasses so they can check their Facebook and not fall into the fountains at the mall while walking. And not to say that our resources should not be focused on more important things that DO make a difference....it would be great if more money were spent on curing cancer, or solving world hunger, etc. But, you cannot discount the relevance of something that has not been fully realized yet, when there is no predicting the impact that it could have on humanity.
Besides...do you really want to fit in with the majority sprinkles?

 

[sprinkles]

Well sure there are “laws” of nature and of the universe. But I 100% believe that things like ESP or other psychic phenomena will one day be explained using science that has not yet been thought of or fully explored yet. What was “magic” in the past, has been explained in modern day....so why discount said “magic” that doesn’t have an explanation yet?
Our perception is so incredibly limited as humans...if you really think about it there is such a minuscule percentage that we can say we solidly know as fact. Even that “factual” information is not fallible. Instead of focusing like you said on those things that we can see and perceive...I would wager that if the proper resources were allotted to study those things that one would call “metaphysical” we would get some real tangible proof. It’s all about what society deems worthy of study...people are more interested in losing weight, curing diseases, and so on. People want the scientists to develop better football helmets so their beloved players don’t get brain damage.
They focus on inventing things like the iglasses so they can check their Facebook and not fall into the fountains at the mall while walking. And not to say that our resources should not be focused on more important things that DO make a difference....it would be great if more money were spent on curing cancer, or solving world hunger, etc. But, you cannot discount the relevance of something that has not been fully realized yet, when there is no predicting the impact that it could have on humanity.
Besides...do you really want to fit in with the majority sprinkles?

I think you misunderstand me.

I'm not discounting metaphysics. If I was, I'd say stop looking for it entirely, which I did not say.

I'm giving a hint as to what I find to be a logical step in discovering anything. To discover things one must be able to discern it in order to know that it is discovered because you are also governed by physical laws. When you get a reading from an instrument it requires something to happen to that instrument and have it emit a reading which is transmitted as light to your eyes for example.

In this case you really do need an aether because your centers of perception currently reside in a medium - your brain. The chain reaction of energy must travel there for you to perceive what you have found or not found.

So it does make sense to look at things that are detectable as a way of finding the undetectable. This is how they found neutrinos. It passes through matter - 65 billion of them pass unimpeded through every centimeter of the earth per second. How can you know if you've captured a neutrino? You set up a target so that the neutrino causes a positron and an electron to annihilate each other and emit two gamma rays which you can detect. Well, how do you know that a neutrino actually did it? Well, you also treat the target with a chemical that will react to the neutrino as it passes through and also emits one gamma ray, and you measure the time between that one gamma ray and the other two gamma rays that you captured, and count how many are released, and if they coincide then you know you've caught a neutrino.

If you take all of that away, you can't find the neutrino because there's nothing that you can perceive in order to determine if it is there. This does not speak to whether it is actually there or not - you simply won't find out unless you use the correct procedure.

 

[Skarekrow]

I think you misunderstand me.

I'm not discounting metaphysics. If I was, I'd say stop looking for it entirely, which I did not say.

I'm giving a hint as to what I find to be a logical step in discovering anything. To discover things one must be able to discern it in order to know that it is discovered because you are also governed by physical laws. When you get a reading from an instrument it requires something to happen to that instrument and have it emit a reading which is transmitted as light to your eyes for example.

In this case you really do need an aether because your centers of perception currently reside in a medium - your brain. The chain reaction of energy must travel there for you to perceive what you have found or not found.

So it does make sense to look at things that are detectable as a way of finding the undetectable. This is how they found neutrinos. It passes through matter - 65 billion of them pass unimpeded through every centimeter of the earth per second. How can you know if you've captured a neutrino? You set up a target so that the neutrino causes a positron and an electron to annihilate each other and emit two gamma rays which you can detect. Well, how do you know that a neutrino actually did it? Well, you also treat the target with a chemical that will react to the neutrino as it passes through and also emits one gamma ray, and you measure the time between that one gamma ray and the other two gamma rays that you captured, and count how many are released, and if they coincide then you know you've caught a neutrino.

If you take all of that away, you can't find the neutrino because there's nothing that you can perceive in order to determine if it is there. This does not speak to whether it is actually there or not - you simply won't find out unless you use the correct procedure.

I know you are not discounting metaphysics.
I was only stating my belief that the reason we don’t have more scientific information or instruments to capture such information is because it has not been given the proper resources to make it discoverable. I for one have a very strong belief in such things existing because I have experienced them with my own senses. Can I explain them scientifically? No. Could some quantum theories explain what happened? Probably. Neutrinos were once a theory too...until they discovered how to detect them.
What I experienced was absolutely detectable....something moved violently when there was no one or nothing (detectable) interacting with it. I am only saying that we cannot give value to something yet to be discovered and explained....maybe it will turn all we know on it’s head....maybe not.