7 ms·

A Formal Apology for Metaphysics [pdf]

34 points by lainon 8y ago

gglon 8y ago
Meta theories should be evaluated by their fruits, theories they help cognitive system to discover. By how good the theories are and how easy it is to discover them. For example: instead of teaching a child a great bunch of theories one can teach it a simple/short meta-theory and see if the child, based on its experience with the world, discovers a greater bunch good theories.
dvt 8y ago
Probably one of the few people that read the whole thing, but the argument is, in my opinion, pretty weak. It basically boils down to making some kind of equivalence between metaphysics and pure mathematics. Of course, it ignores the main force of mathematical progress: theorem-building. Metaphysics might be "interconnected in much the same way" as Dr. Baron argues, but let's not kid ourselves. To argue that metaphysics is as "conceptually interrelated" as mathematics is is a real stretch. Just consider volume: it's estimated that around a quarter of a million theorems are proved every year. That's real, measurable, progress; what's the metaphysics equivalent? The distinction between "internally applied metaphysics" and "externally applied metaphysics" on page 14 is a shameless red herring. The only thing we ought to care about, given the preceding section on applications of pure mathematics is "externally applied metaphysics," but in typical philosopher fashion, Dr. Baron equivocates for a few unnecessary pages. Finally, let me leave you with this gem: "All three cases are examples in which scientists appear to be doing metaphysics. Computer scientists build models of objects and categories in order to provide the resources for artificial intelligence to successfully navigate the world, or make judgements [sic] about it." Yeah, that's not metaphysics; it's pretty much just regular taxonomy (and, by the way, the term of art is labeling). TensorFlow models have nothing to do with metaphysical models, and this is exactly why philosophers get such a bad rap. They extend far beyond the reaches of their knowledge base and don't even have the courtesy to look up "machine learning model" on Wikipedia.
- NotAnEconomist 8y ago
  Isn't the equivalent metaphysics all those moments we have a theory of how to examine the world, so as to come to an accurate conclusion? Metaphysics is required to make an inference -- it's the philosophical underpinning of things like science. Hence "meta-" "physics": the study of the study of physics. Metaphysics is the glue that takes the language of mathematics to ontologies of physics. Mathematics is the modern rigorous language of metaphysics. Assorted marketing campaigns have made the topic murky. > Yeah, that's not metaphysics; it's pretty much just regular taxonomy (and, by the way, the term of art is labeling). That literally is metaphysics. It's okay there's another word (or two?), but words are not exclusive in the way your logic implies.
  - dvt 8y ago
    > That literally is metaphysics. The claim that toddlers figuring out what shapes fit in what wooden holes are doing metaphysics is seriously off-base. Metaphysics deals with first causes, ontology, modality, free will, and so on. Let's not mince words. Taxonomy is not metaphysics. > No, they do. I think the burden of proof is on you. You're making fantastical claims but I don't see any connection between a TensorFlow model and any metaphysical model whatsoever. > This is why people get frustrated: you don't seem to understand the link, squawk about how it doesn't exist, and then insist philosophy must be useless because you never took the time to understand where you do it naturally. I studied philosophy.
    - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
      > what shapes fit in what wooden holes > ontology We must be talking past each other, or something. For context, for other readers -- > Traditionally listed as the core of metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#Ontology_(Being) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#Ontology_(Being)
      - 8y ago
josh_fyi 8y ago
The actual justification for non-directly-observable metaphysics is Occam's Razor.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  How do you know that the true metaphysics of the world doesn't have one additional thing beyond your theory? There is no way, there is not even any way to get a sense of what pattern it is following.
AltruisticGap 8y ago
Maybe readers will enjoy this related post from Bernardo Kastrup. It may argue the point better, or not. I can't argue myself as it's too obvious for me. It's a unwinnable argument in my opinion, since it drives right into what it means to know something. Why dismissing philosophy threatens the integrity of science https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2018/12/why-dismissing-philosophy-threatens.html https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2018/12/why-dismissing-philo...
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Only the most radical suggest eliminating philosophy, because that would include ethics and from that law, and also some art criticism. A much more common stance is that certain "impossible" areas of philosophy are a waste of time, and if you ask a "science-ist" to be specific about what they don't like, they'll probably only list those parts of philosophy.
klyrs 8y ago
This isn't an apology, it's blame-shifting. "Don't hit people! Apologize to your sibling NOW!" "Sorry mom, my sibling plays baseball and gets congratulated whenever they hit the ball; so we're really no different"

34 points by lainon 8y ago

Meta theories should be evaluated by their fruits, theories they help cognitive system to discover. By how good the theories are and how easy it is to discover them. For example: instead of teaching a child a great bunch of theories one can teach it a simple/short meta-theory and see if the child, based on its experience with the world, discovers a greater bunch good theories.

dvt 8y ago

Probably one of the few people that read the whole thing, but the argument is, in my opinion, pretty weak. It basically boils down to making some kind of equivalence between metaphysics and pure mathematics. Of course, it ignores the main force of mathematical progress: theorem-building. Metaphysics might be "interconnected in much the same way" as Dr. Baron argues, but let's not kid ourselves. To argue that metaphysics is as "conceptually interrelated" as mathematics is is a real stretch. Just consider volume: it's estimated that around a quarter of a million theorems are proved every year. That's real, measurable, progress; what's the metaphysics equivalent? The distinction between "internally applied metaphysics" and "externally applied metaphysics" on page 14 is a shameless red herring. The only thing we ought to care about, given the preceding section on applications of pure mathematics is "externally applied metaphysics," but in typical philosopher fashion, Dr. Baron equivocates for a few unnecessary pages. Finally, let me leave you with this gem: "All three cases are examples in which scientists appear to be doing metaphysics. Computer scientists build models of objects and categories in order to provide the resources for artificial intelligence to successfully navigate the world, or make judgements [sic] about it." Yeah, that's not metaphysics; it's pretty much just regular taxonomy (and, by the way, the term of art is labeling). TensorFlow models have nothing to do with metaphysical models, and this is exactly why philosophers get such a bad rap. They extend far beyond the reaches of their knowledge base and don't even have the courtesy to look up "machine learning model" on Wikipedia.

NotAnEconomist 8y ago
Isn't the equivalent metaphysics all those moments we have a theory of how to examine the world, so as to come to an accurate conclusion? Metaphysics is required to make an inference -- it's the philosophical underpinning of things like science. Hence "meta-" "physics": the study of the study of physics. Metaphysics is the glue that takes the language of mathematics to ontologies of physics. Mathematics is the modern rigorous language of metaphysics. Assorted marketing campaigns have made the topic murky. > Yeah, that's not metaphysics; it's pretty much just regular taxonomy (and, by the way, the term of art is labeling). That literally is metaphysics. It's okay there's another word (or two?), but words are not exclusive in the way your logic implies.
- dvt 8y ago
  > That literally is metaphysics. The claim that toddlers figuring out what shapes fit in what wooden holes are doing metaphysics is seriously off-base. Metaphysics deals with first causes, ontology, modality, free will, and so on. Let's not mince words. Taxonomy is not metaphysics. > No, they do. I think the burden of proof is on you. You're making fantastical claims but I don't see any connection between a TensorFlow model and any metaphysical model whatsoever. > This is why people get frustrated: you don't seem to understand the link, squawk about how it doesn't exist, and then insist philosophy must be useless because you never took the time to understand where you do it naturally. I studied philosophy.
  - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
    > what shapes fit in what wooden holes > ontology We must be talking past each other, or something. For context, for other readers -- > Traditionally listed as the core of metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#Ontology_(Being) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#Ontology_(Being)
    - 8y ago

josh_fyi 8y ago

The actual justification for non-directly-observable metaphysics is Occam's Razor.

whatshisface 8y ago
How do you know that the true metaphysics of the world doesn't have one additional thing beyond your theory? There is no way, there is not even any way to get a sense of what pattern it is following.

AltruisticGap 8y ago

Maybe readers will enjoy this related post from Bernardo Kastrup. It may argue the point better, or not. I can't argue myself as it's too obvious for me. It's a unwinnable argument in my opinion, since it drives right into what it means to know something. Why dismissing philosophy threatens the integrity of science https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2018/12/why-dismissing-philosophy-threatens.html https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2018/12/why-dismissing-philo...

whatshisface 8y ago
Only the most radical suggest eliminating philosophy, because that would include ethics and from that law, and also some art criticism. A much more common stance is that certain "impossible" areas of philosophy are a waste of time, and if you ask a "science-ist" to be specific about what they don't like, they'll probably only list those parts of philosophy.

klyrs 8y ago

This isn't an apology, it's blame-shifting. "Don't hit people! Apologize to your sibling NOW!" "Sorry mom, my sibling plays baseball and gets congratulated whenever they hit the ball; so we're really no different"