3 ms·

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 requir

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)
  - dvt 8y ago
    > We must be talking past each other, or something. I guess we are. According to you, when my cousins go to Six Flags, they're doing fluid mechanics. Forgive me if I don't buy that.
    - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
      It's literally ontology -- they're discovering the idea of shape as a concept, which is an equivalence of structural forms, which is an ontological concept. I mean, I get that you don't like that because it proves my point, and that's why you're making really silly comparisons. But to answer -- yes, most children at water parks also are figuring out fluid mechanics at a simple level, eg drag or interference.
      - naasking 8y ago
        > It's literally ontology -- they're discovering the idea of shape as a concept, which is an equivalence of structural forms, which is an ontological concept. I think there's an important difference between the implicit, intuitive, relational knowledge that we build via direct interaction, and philosophical knowledge that the other poster is thinking talking about (and presumably, what ontology is about). You're equating the two without arguing why we should consider them the same. At best, our implicit model of the world knowledge informs our intuitions on some philosophical concepts, but that still doesn't entail this knowledge is the same as philosophical knowledge.
        NotAnEconomist 8y ago
        > I think there's an important difference between the implicit, intuitive, relational knowledge that we build via direct interaction, and philosophical knowledge that the other poster is thinking talking about In the same sense that there's a distinction between counting and mathematics, or throwing things and physics, or conversations and psychology, or various other academic disciplines -- that is to say, a very artificial one. In every topic, people think about them as a routine course of events -- they just form very simple effective theories on the subject, because their life doesn't require a more advanced one. "Physics" the academic subject is just a very advanced version of the intuition you build about throwing balls, smashing rocks, walking on ice, and not jumping out of windows. Similarly, your argument seems deeply confused: The burden of proof is on the people asserting that an arbitrary distinction in what's clearly a spectrum of things is meaningful. In this case, it falls to you to show that there's a meaningful difference in kind between the sorts of thoughts a child is having about ontology (eg, that a positive version of a shape and a negative version of a shape are the same "shape") and whatever other example you want to use. Each of you has clearly admitted that they're on the spectrum of ontological thought, because that's why you recognize it so clearly as an example, then just had special pleading of "Well, simple ontology shouldn't really count as ontology, because that would make me wrong." So again, we see that philosophy is useful -- the "burden of proof" is a philosophical concept that lets me just reply, "No, how about you show that splitting ontological thought into 'true ontology' and 'not really ontology' is useful in the first place."
bloat 8y ago
As I understand it, that is not the etymology of metaphysics. In fact metaphysics means the subject matter of the books Aristotle wrote after (meta) he wrote The Physics. https://www.etymonline.com/word/metaphysics https://www.etymonline.com/word/metaphysics https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metaphysics#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metaphysics#Etymology

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)
- dvt 8y ago
  > We must be talking past each other, or something. I guess we are. According to you, when my cousins go to Six Flags, they're doing fluid mechanics. Forgive me if I don't buy that.
  - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
    It's literally ontology -- they're discovering the idea of shape as a concept, which is an equivalence of structural forms, which is an ontological concept. I mean, I get that you don't like that because it proves my point, and that's why you're making really silly comparisons. But to answer -- yes, most children at water parks also are figuring out fluid mechanics at a simple level, eg drag or interference.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > It's literally ontology -- they're discovering the idea of shape as a concept, which is an equivalence of structural forms, which is an ontological concept. I think there's an important difference between the implicit, intuitive, relational knowledge that we build via direct interaction, and philosophical knowledge that the other poster is thinking talking about (and presumably, what ontology is about). You're equating the two without arguing why we should consider them the same. At best, our implicit model of the world knowledge informs our intuitions on some philosophical concepts, but that still doesn't entail this knowledge is the same as philosophical knowledge.
      - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
        > I think there's an important difference between the implicit, intuitive, relational knowledge that we build via direct interaction, and philosophical knowledge that the other poster is thinking talking about In the same sense that there's a distinction between counting and mathematics, or throwing things and physics, or conversations and psychology, or various other academic disciplines -- that is to say, a very artificial one. In every topic, people think about them as a routine course of events -- they just form very simple effective theories on the subject, because their life doesn't require a more advanced one. "Physics" the academic subject is just a very advanced version of the intuition you build about throwing balls, smashing rocks, walking on ice, and not jumping out of windows. Similarly, your argument seems deeply confused: The burden of proof is on the people asserting that an arbitrary distinction in what's clearly a spectrum of things is meaningful. In this case, it falls to you to show that there's a meaningful difference in kind between the sorts of thoughts a child is having about ontology (eg, that a positive version of a shape and a negative version of a shape are the same "shape") and whatever other example you want to use. Each of you has clearly admitted that they're on the spectrum of ontological thought, because that's why you recognize it so clearly as an example, then just had special pleading of "Well, simple ontology shouldn't really count as ontology, because that would make me wrong." So again, we see that philosophy is useful -- the "burden of proof" is a philosophical concept that lets me just reply, "No, how about you show that splitting ontological thought into 'true ontology' and 'not really ontology' is useful in the first place."

bloat 8y ago

As I understand it, that is not the etymology of metaphysics. In fact metaphysics means the subject matter of the books Aristotle wrote after (meta) he wrote The Physics. https://www.etymonline.com/word/metaphysics https://www.etymonline.com/word/metaphysics https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metaphysics#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metaphysics#Etymology