What makes people irrational thinkers?

[polymath257]

So, again I ask, what method should we use for these metaphysical issues that can reliably tell fact from fiction?

I don't think there is one. 

You definitely shouldn't believe any statement concerning metaphysical issues.

If there is no such way to separate fact from fiction, in what way can it be considered to be knowledge?

How is it any different then pure speculation?

[Simon Moon]

So, again I ask, what method should we use for these metaphysical issues that can reliably tell fact from fiction?

I don't think there is one. 

You definitely shouldn't believe any statement concerning metaphysical issues.

The question which then follows; is why should anyone?

If there is no metaphysical methods that can reliably discern fact from fiction, wouldn't that mean, that those that believe in said god claims, are being irrational?

[Belacqua]

The question which then follows; is why should anyone?

If there is no metaphysical methods that can reliably discern fact from fiction, wouldn't that mean, that those that believe in said god claims, are being irrational?

According to your own metaphysical beliefs, only science can discern fact from fiction. 

If it's important to you that others accept your metaphysical beliefs, then of course you should use philosophical arguments to persuade them.

[polymath257]

The question which then follows; is why should anyone?

If there is no metaphysical methods that can reliably discern fact from fiction, wouldn't that mean, that those that believe in said god claims, are being irrational?

According to your own metaphysical beliefs, only science can discern fact from fiction. 

If it's important to you that others accept your metaphysical beliefs, then of course you should use philosophical arguments to persuade them.

Well, many have a rather limited concept of what constitutes 'science'. I would label any subject that uses the scientific method as a science.

In particular, there is no predefined notion of 'material' or 'physical'. All that is required is that hypotheses be testable by observation.

Now, there are subjects not subject to this method. For example, mathematics is not based on observation, but is instead a formal theory based on axioms and deduction from those axioms. It has a different test for the reliability of its ideas. But that makes it correspondingly limited in what it can say about the 'real world'.

I am more than willing to accept that other subjects may have other methods for eliminating falsehoods. But the two methods I know that work (hypothesis testing by observation, and proof in a formal system) don't seem to work in metaphysics. And, as you have admitted, there is no accepted way to eliminate falsehoods from metaphysics. That lack means that is it a subject of opinion and not of knowledge. It is closer to aesthetics than it is to science: a matter of taste and not a matter of objective fact.

[Belacqua]

According to your own metaphysical beliefs, only science can discern fact from fiction. 

If it's important to you that others accept your metaphysical beliefs, then of course you should use philosophical arguments to persuade them.

Well, many have a rather limited concept of what constitutes 'science'. I would label any subject that uses the scientific method as a science.

In particular, there is no predefined notion of 'material' or 'physical'. All that is required is that hypotheses be testable by observation.

Now, there are subjects not subject to this method. For example, mathematics is not based on observation, but is instead a formal theory based on axioms and deduction from those axioms. It has a different test for the reliability of its ideas. But that makes it correspondingly limited in what it can say about the 'real world'.

I am more than willing to accept that other subjects may have other methods for eliminating falsehoods. But the two methods I know that work (hypothesis testing by observation, and proof in a formal system) don't seem to work in metaphysics. And, as you have admitted, there is no accepted way to eliminate falsehoods from metaphysics. That lack means that is it a subject of opinion and not of knowledge. It is closer to aesthetics than it is to science: a matter of taste and not a matter of objective fact.

Given your strong commitment to your own metaphysical beliefs, I won't attempt to argue.

[polymath257]

Well, many have a rather limited concept of what constitutes 'science'. I would label any subject that uses the scientific method as a science.

In particular, there is no predefined notion of 'material' or 'physical'. All that is required is that hypotheses be testable by observation.

Now, there are subjects not subject to this method. For example, mathematics is not based on observation, but is instead a formal theory based on axioms and deduction from those axioms. It has a different test for the reliability of its ideas. But that makes it correspondingly limited in what it can say about the 'real world'.

I am more than willing to accept that other subjects may have other methods for eliminating falsehoods. But the two methods I know that work (hypothesis testing by observation, and proof in a formal system) don't seem to work in metaphysics. And, as you have admitted, there is no accepted way to eliminate falsehoods from metaphysics. That lack means that is it a subject of opinion and not of knowledge. It is closer to aesthetics than it is to science: a matter of taste and not a matter of objective fact.

Given your strong commitment to your own metaphysical beliefs, I won't attempt to argue.

I am curious what you would say and how you would justify your own metaphysical beliefs.

I am continue to read Hart. What bothers me is the assumption that existence needs to be 'grounded' in something. What could that even mean? The focus on 'contingency' (which seems to be quite different than simply being 'physically caused') makes little sense to me. In what way is existence of anything a contingent thing? That seems to me to be a category error.

[Belacqua]

I am curious what you would say and how you would justify your own metaphysical beliefs.

Everybody's a naive realist when he goes to the supermarket.

Beyond that, I try to follow my own advice, which is not to believe metaphysical statements. One holds them tentatively to contemplate possibilities. 

Contingency is just when something isn't necessary. Science is happy to accept "brute facts" -- "it's that way because it's just that way." This is appropriate, because science doesn't deal in the metaphysics underlying the facts. The necessary conditions required for brute facts to be true are usually metaphysical issues. 

You have said that asking questions which can't be examined scientifically is a waste of time. Other people find these questions interesting, though unprovable.

[Anomalocaris]

Pleasing bullshit is not any less bullshit.

[polymath257]

I am curious what you would say and how you would justify your own metaphysical beliefs.

Everybody's a naive realist when he goes to the supermarket.

Beyond that, I try to follow my own advice, which is not to believe metaphysical statements. One holds them tentatively to contemplate possibilities. 

Contingency is just when something isn't necessary.

Yes, I understand that. But I don't understand how either applies to the existence of something.

Science is happy to accept "brute facts" -- "it's that way because it's just that way." This is appropriate, because science doesn't deal in the metaphysics underlying the facts. The necessary conditions required for brute facts to be true are usually metaphysical issues.

It seems to me that all that some metaphysics does is say that God is a 'brute fact' that needs no further explanation.

You have said that asking questions which can't be examined scientifically is a waste of time. Other people find these questions interesting, though unprovable.

And, like I said, I am willing to accept that other means of eliminating error might be available. For example, in math, we use proof in a formal system. But if there is *no* means of doing so in a subject, all that means, as far as I can see, is that the subject is *pure* speculation. Which is fine, as long as it doesn't claim to actually make any factual claims.

I also am not asking for provability in the mathematical sense (which is limited to formal systems); just some way of reliably eliminating false ideas.

Metaphysics is fine to discuss online or over drinks, but the only real answers to any metaphysical question seems to be either "I don't know" or "what does that even mean?". So, after a while, it just seems like intellectual masturbation.

I am *hoping* for more, by the way. It would be wonderful if there could actually be answers and knowledge as opposed to endless speculation and febrile imagination.

[Belacqua]

I am *hoping* for more, by the way. It would be wonderful if there could actually be answers and knowledge as opposed to endless speculation and febrile  imagination.

You are hoping for more as long as it's compatible with your unprovable deeply-held a prioris. But you've ruled out any other kind of answer in advance. 

So it's hopeless.