metaphysics

[Nilloc James]

People love to use metaphysics as a defence for positions that dont seem otherwise defensible. I hate to admit that Im not quite knowledgable enough in metaphysics to judge this methodology. If someone could fill me in that would be lovely. Both proponents and opponenta are welcome to answer the following questions and make me more knowlagable.

What is metaphysics?

How does it work?

What knowledge has it produced?

What are its limitations?

[Divine Insight]

People love to use metaphysics as a defence for positions that dont seem otherwise defensible. I hate to admit that Im not quite knowledgable enough in metaphysics to judge this methodology. If someone could fill me in that would be lovely. Both proponents and opponenta are welcome to answer the following questions and make me more knowlagable.

I'm neither a proponent, nor an opponent of "metaphysics" however I do have some interests that could be placed under that label depending on how it is defined. The definition itself seems to be somewhat illusive:

What is metaphysics?

I think this question itself is open to personal ideals.

I just looked the term up using Google and retrieved the following two definitions.

1. The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, cause,...

To me this sounds like a reasonable philosophical definition that can have merit at at least based in reason since it's based on reasonable concepts (i.e. being, knowing, cause, etc.) Those can be defined and discussed intelligently, rationally and logically.

They also give the following definition:

2. Abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.

This is almost a derogatory definition that appears to almost be dismissing metaphysics out of hand as having "no basis in reality".

I personally do not associate the term metaphysics with this second semantic definition, but clearly some people do. I would certainly prefer the first definition, especially when referring any metaphysical ideas or hypotheses that I might conjecture.

On my own personal note I would point out the that term "meta" simply means "beyond". So for me, Metaphysics attempts to go beyond physics. Where physics can no longer explain something, it's time for metaphysics, at least in terms of philosophy.

Metaphysics is clearly not a "science". Obviously any metaphysical idea, hypothesis, or conjecture that could be proven to be true would at that very instant become "Physics" and would no longer be considered to be metaphysics.

In fact, many people have pointed out that many sound principles of physics today were at one time metaphysics. Einsteins time dilation was certainly a "metaphysical" notion until it was confirmed by experiment. Now it is considered established physics because it has been show to be true.

The same could be said for many other things. Gregor Mendel's idea of "genes" was a metaphysical idea until Watson and Crick discovered DNA. Now "genes" are considered to be "physics".

How does it work?

It works as a means of formulating hypotheses. The Higgs particle was "metaphysics" until it was discovered in the lab. And I think they are still working on confirming that discovery.

Of course, there were also a lot of metaphysical ideas that didn't pan out as well. So metaphysics is basically guessing. But it could be guesses based upon a lot of well-established evidence.

What knowledge has it produced?

Specially Relativity?

General Relativity?

A Higgs particle?

Genes and DNA?

What are its limitations?

It can be a totally bogus and incorrect guess at times.

Metaphysics is simply any attempt to go beyond what physics currently as established to be true. Meta-physics means Beyond-physics.

Metaphysics does NOT mean, "Contrary to known physics". Or "In Conflict with Known physics".

In fact, anyone who claims to have an idea that is conflict with known physics and calls their idea "metaphysics" then they are abusing the term metaphysics IMHO.

All of my metaphysical ideas, hypotheses, and conjectures are all totally compatible with known physics. They wouldn't even qualify as metaphysics if they weren't, IMHO.

Does this mean that they are necessarily valid? No, not at all. All it means is that they have not yet been ruled out by established physics, because if they had been ruled out then they would no longer qualify as being "metaphysical".

Metaphysics is supposed to go beyond known physics, it's not suppose to deny it or conflict with it in any way. That would neither be reasonable, nor logical, nor rational.

But I think a lot of people do abuse the term metaphysics using it to simply mean "Anything Goes" even if it violates or conflicts with known physics. And that's just a very poor usage of the term. But people abuse terms all the time so there's nothing new there.

That's my thoughts on the term metaphysics.

[Jester]

People love to use metaphysics as a defence for positions that dont seem otherwise defensible. I hate to admit that Im not quite knowledgable enough in metaphysics to judge this methodology. If someone could fill me in that would be lovely. Both proponents and opponenta are welcome to answer the following questions and make me more knowlagable.

I have run across the rejection of metaphysics, which has always struck me as strange. Whether or not one agrees, I'll see if I can make my reasons for this clear:

What is metaphysics?

Metaphysics is the study of the basic nature of reality. It is the attempt to answer questions about what sorts of things exist or don't.

One thing I find myself underlining is the idea that metaphysics isn't a methodology. Philosophy is, to be sure. As is logic. But to say that a question is metaphysical is to say that it pertains to questions about the basic parts of reality.

How does it work?

As it is a topic, it doesn't actually work in a particular way.

However, it tends to be agreed upon that logical consistency and consistency with experience of reality are vital to a good approach to metaphysical questions.

What knowledge has it produced?

In one sense, it has produced all knowledge.

That is to say that all fields of study are founded on certain metaphysical principles. Science, for instance, is founded on the principle of Sufficient Reason, Ockham's Razor, Regularity (of the universe), among other metaphysical principles.

Personally, I think it is a stretch to say that all knowledge is produced by metaphysical positions. Rather, I'd say that metaphysics produces metaphysical knowledge (including the very useful principles just mentioned).

What are its limitations?

It is limited to the sort of questions that could be called metaphysical. That is, it is a topic which regards the basic nature of reality.

Metaphysics, therefore, couldn't even in principle invent a medical therapy or solve a crime–though both medicine and investigative techniques require certain metaphysical foundations. It only deals with far more general questions.