Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!caip!unirot!cjr From: cjr@unirot.UUCP (Charles Riordan) Newsgroups: net.sci,net.philosophy,net.nlang Subject: Re: Metaphysicians Message-ID: <373@unirot.UUCP> Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 20:55:19 EST Article-I.D.: unirot.373 Posted: Fri Mar 14 20:55:19 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 17-Mar-86 03:28:00 EST References: <899@decwrl.DEC.COM> <402@aoa.UUCP> <192@ulowell.UUCP> <954@lanl.ARPA> <143@spar.UUCP> Organization: Public Access Un*x, The Soup Kitchen Lines: 87 Xref: watmath net.sci:601 net.philosophy:4479 net.nlang:4305 Summary: science and religion In article <143@spar.UUCP>, ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > What has changed is the fossilization of our so-called `scientific' society, > which largely brands anything not fitting into its 19th century cause > and effect worldview as incomprehensible, even heretical. To such > folk, `What Is' has been fixed for all time by the scientific method; > consequently, if metaphysics is not ordinary science, then it must be > antiscience, and therefore no better from occultism. > > Science, having defeated Religion, is now the ultimate arbiter of such > matters. Like those in times past brainwashed by Religion, the modern > day Scientismists CANNOT EVEN THINK incorrect thoughts, except in > terms of extreme charicatures: "If you shirk logical analysis and > verifiable evidence, you will become like Jerry Falwell! People like > you persecuted Galileo!" Right on, man! I can see that you and I are of like, mind. These deluded scientismatists THINK they have defeated religion, but obviously they cannot reach into the depths of our minds to know what really happens. They figure that just because we can't "prove" what we say by their overly strict sceintific rules, they've defeated us. I'm glad there are people like you out there who refuse to admit defeat, who won't let the damned scientists let their obsurd notions of "evidence" and "logic" stand in the way of believing the inner truth of your minds. Those guys are probably just nurdy Mr. Spock types anyway. > Does spirit `exist'? Does virtue `exist'? How about universals? Or > mind? Whatever can `ethics' mean? From the conventional scientific view, > these are nonsense questions. They are neither verifiable nor > falsifiable in any traditional scientific sense. Obviously, such > questions are the result of delusion! I see what you mean, man. I guess what you're infering is that calling these questions a result of delusion is a delusion itself! I wish I could write like you do, you make your points so well using sarcasm and other lingual tools. Obviously we make use of these things every day. How could they possibly be delusions? > Metaphysics became taboo during the era of Logical Positivism. The > logical positivists, you see, thought they had settled metaphysical > questions for all time. If something could not be demonstrated to exist > using deductive reason and a empirical method, it was nonsense. > > There were many reasons logical positivism faded away. First, its > advocates had to admit that ethics was as much idle metaphysics as > theology. Good science, maybe, but not very enlightening philosophy. > Secondly, the beloved verifiability principle itself was not > verifiable, and thus, metaphysical. Far out! You really are an insightful dude. I'd prefer being an illogical negativist to being a logical positivist anyday! Who did those guys think they were anyway, denying all those things we hold dear like that? Mind you, I'm only getting this cosmic stuff third hand from my friend Pete, who's studying mystical sciences independently through the California Research Institute of Mystical Philosophy, learning about the great Eastern mystics. He's a disciple of one of them (I guess that makes me a trisciple?) It takes a few good hits before I can get anything out of a conversation with him. > And just how do we decide which entities and axioms are to be accepted > as the foundations for reasoning and observation? Deciding what such > critical matters might be IS metaphysics. > > Ultimately, the sciences themselves broke into many factions differing > in the extreme concerning metaphysical issues, even (especially?) > within specialized fields (eg: QM). Physicists themselves, ironically > enough, resurrected metaphysics!! > > Nonetheless, the vast majority of scientific educators still seem to be > caught in a logical positivist stranglehold; `metaphysics' remains a > term of derision to the enginerd mentality ignorant of all mathematics, > physics, or philosophy beyond that required to bring home a good > salary. Hey, man, now I'm beginning to get bad vibes from you. Maybe you're just some stooge pretending to be hip to the truth for sarcastic purposes. Ignorance of science and mathematics, as you seemed to be saying earlier, is something worth striving for. These disciplines only serve to cloud the minds, preventing the Eastern mind from coming to frution as it is blocked by the dogmatic sceintific thinking of the Western mind. If you are limited by the "scientific method," by logic, by using only your Western mind to think, then you are missing out on the real truth, the truth that comes through to you by believing what you want with your Eastern mind. Your implication that these people should learn MORE mathematics and science tells me where you're really coming from: your dogmatic Western mind! -- Peace, CJ (Charles J. Riordan - unirot!cjr)