BothAndBlog Forum

An article worth reading: Confirmable and Influential Metaphysics.
https://www.academia.edu/3843328/Watkins0002

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... physics/p1


Examples given include determinism, historicism, mechanism (the denial of the existence of empty space), its opposite - field theories, vitalism and its denial, various aspects of mind, and conservation doctrines of all sorts. — Banno

Yes. Most of those theories are meaningful, but non-empirical. That's why I say that Quantum Physics has inadvertently crossed the line into Meta-physics. Yet, by "meta-physics", I don't mean ghosts & gods, but merely those aspects of our world that are not directly accessible to the Scientific Method. That's why there is still some fertile territory for philosophical exploration.

Some of the pioneers of Quantum Physics saw its meta-physical implications, and used Eastern Philosophical terminology to express some counter-intuitive concepts. But they eventually lost-out to the hard empiricists, who rebuffed the "errant" theorists with "shut-up and calculate".

I have downloaded the PDF, and may have more to say later. That's because us meta-physical types often get booed off the stage in this forum, just because we go beyond the purview of empirical Physics. Apparently, some posters here have Physics Envy.

"Physics envy" refers to the envy (perceived or real) of scholars in other disciplines for the mathematical precision of fundamental concepts obtained by physicists. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

An article worth reading: Confirmable and influential metaphysics. — Banno

The paper makes a good point : not all "influential" theories are "confirmable".

Watkins : "There are two other kinds of existential statement which are unempirical. The first alleges the existence of something un-localised and abstract, e.g. 'There is a law of nature governing these phenomena'. This statement will get verified, or at least strongly confirmed, if a hypothesis happens to be invented from which can be derived numerous precise and successful predictions about the phenomena in question. But it will not be refuted if no one manages to hit upon such a hypothesis".

For example, Quantum Physicists have, to the dismay of Einstein, hypothesized non-local phenomena, that meet the criteria for spooky Metaphysics, but have nevertheless been useful and "influential" in Physics.

"Nonlocality suggests that universe is in fact profoundly different from our habitual understanding of it,"
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/to ... ality.html

So, as the paper suggests, we should not automatically reject all metaphysical theories out-of-hand, just because they are not empirical, but merely inferential. In some cases, they help us make sense of realities that are "outside of human sense perception". Hence, they are "Influential", true or not. :chin:

Metaphysics : referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. . . .
. . .Under the skeptical analyses of the philosophical movements known as postmodernism and deconstructionism, all of these facts have resulted in a modern repudiation of both metaphysics and science. Their criticisms are based on the cultural and historical relativity of all knowledge. These two philosophical "schools" deny any existence at all of an objective or universal knowledge. Thus, metaphysical claims stand today between the absolutist claims of science (scientism) and the complete relativism of postmodernism and deconstructionism.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/geng ... -body.html