Kane B concludes the video above by talking about the relevance of scales. I noted that about ontic structural realism and its own desire to "naturalise metaphysics". In very basic terms, I see OSR as simply a philosophy of quantum mechanics - full stop. And that's not a surprise when you read James Ladyman's books and papers: it's nearly all about quantum mechanics (entanglement, fields, etc.). Thus it's not a surprise either than "analytic metaphysics" gets it in the ear because it only (usually?) deals with the "classical scale". Now this, of course, leaves the debate as to the precise relation between the quantum scale and the scale of "medium-sized dry goods".
Great video, thanks! Just one (perhaps only historical) comment: I think that the appeal to a benevolent designer/creator by early modern philosophers such as Descartes was not merely to support the validity of the "intuition" by designed/created epistemic agents, but also their "perception".
“The link between the world and intuition is completely opaque” - yet, Watson had a dream-like vision of the structure of DNA prior to discovering it, Kekule dreamt of an ouroboros with the benzene ring in the middle of it, and we all know about Einstein’s meditative thought experiments which envisioned light beams bending along timespace. Maybe the link is fuzzy and complicated but there is evidence it has some sort of connection worth further inspection.
isnt there some very obvious, more common sensical, psychological explanation? They were continiously working on their research and got those visions or dreams as a result of the work already done?
1. Metaphysics and science do not share the same set of objects and even you admit this when you say science is frequently CORRECT instead of TRUE, because science cannot say what is true, that is, its object of study is always contingent to this world and not something that is the case in every possible world, on the other hand metaphysics objects of study are those things that MUST be the case in every possible world (that is, true). For example, the statement “The speed of light is the upper limit for the speed at which conventional matter and information can travel.” is a correct statement in relation to our world but there may be a world in which this is not the case, if something “may not be the case”, then it is something that is neither false nor true but merely correct or incorrect. Now if i say “Anything that is identical with something, cannot be something else besides itself” (or there cannot be two objects that are exactly the same) is true in whatever world that may or may not exist. While the first assertion is a scientifically correct statement, the second one is not. But someone might argue that, since we have no evidence for modal realism, then we should assume it is false and directly correlate truthness with correctness. But if there is no evidence for other worlds, we should also assume that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but even disregarding this, if a statement has the possibility of being false, then it can only be correct or incorrect, but not true or false and since scientific statements must be always have the possibility of being disproved, then no scientific statement can be true or false. 2. I´d say there is no conflict between intuitions and science, because intuition is merely the scope of our understanding, if something can be understood, then it must be within the scope of intuition, however, if something seems unintituitive, maybe we should blame our limited cognitive abilities and not our intuitions, just as Glenn Gould could intuitively play any musical piece he read and most of us can´t, is due to a limitation in cognition, not in our intuitions. So, our intuitions aren´t "wrong" in the sense that a certain concept is outside the scope of our understanding, but it is "wrong" is the sense it may choose the incorrect understanding of a certain concept due to the limitations of the intuition-bearing subject.
As I mentioned, most of the stuff on naturalized metaphysics is drawn from "Scientific Metaphysics", edited by Ladyman, Ross, and Kincaid and "Every Thing Must Go", especially chapter 1, by Ladyman and Ross.
Please! As an English person, surely you should be using an 's' and not a 'z' to spell 'naturalized'/'naturalised' and 'theorizing'/'theorising'. At this rate, even educated Americans might start thinking I can't spell properly when they read what I write, because I use the UK spelling for words! You wouldn't spell 'colour' or 'honour' the American way! (I realise that this has no relevance at all to the philosophical content of the video, but... Come on!)
Never have I ever thought that I could learn so much from a single UA-camr. Thank you for all the work you do, from the bottom of my heart
Kane B concludes the video above by talking about the relevance of scales. I noted that about ontic structural realism and its own desire to "naturalise metaphysics".
In very basic terms, I see OSR as simply a philosophy of quantum mechanics - full stop. And that's not a surprise when you read James Ladyman's books and papers: it's nearly all about quantum mechanics (entanglement, fields, etc.). Thus it's not a surprise either than "analytic metaphysics" gets it in the ear because it only (usually?) deals with the "classical scale".
Now this, of course, leaves the debate as to the precise relation between the quantum scale and the scale of "medium-sized dry goods".
Great video, thanks! Just one (perhaps only historical) comment: I think that the appeal to a benevolent designer/creator by early modern philosophers such as Descartes was not merely to support the validity of the "intuition" by designed/created epistemic agents, but also their "perception".
“The link between the world and intuition is completely opaque” - yet, Watson had a dream-like vision of the structure of DNA prior to discovering it, Kekule dreamt of an ouroboros with the benzene ring in the middle of it, and we all know about Einstein’s meditative thought experiments which envisioned light beams bending along timespace. Maybe the link is fuzzy and complicated but there is evidence it has some sort of connection worth further inspection.
isnt there some very obvious, more common sensical, psychological explanation? They were continiously working on their research and got those visions or dreams as a result of the work already done?
1. Metaphysics and science do not share the same set of objects and even you admit this when you say science is frequently CORRECT instead of TRUE, because science cannot say what is true, that is, its object of study is always contingent to this world and not something that is the case in every possible world, on the other hand metaphysics objects of study are those things that MUST be the case in every possible world (that is, true). For example, the statement “The speed of light is the upper limit for the speed at which conventional matter and information can travel.” is a correct statement in relation to our world but there may be a world in which this is not the case, if something “may not be the case”, then it is something that is neither false nor true but merely correct or incorrect. Now if i say “Anything that is identical with something, cannot be something else besides itself” (or there cannot be two objects that are exactly the same) is true in whatever world that may or may not exist. While the first assertion is a scientifically correct statement, the second one is not.
But someone might argue that, since we have no evidence for modal realism, then we should assume it is false and directly correlate truthness with correctness. But if there is no evidence for other worlds, we should also assume that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but even disregarding this, if a statement has the possibility of being false, then it can only be correct or incorrect, but not true or false and since scientific statements must be always have the possibility of being disproved, then no scientific statement can be true or false.
2. I´d say there is no conflict between intuitions and science, because intuition is merely the scope of our understanding, if something can be understood, then it must be within the scope of intuition, however, if something seems unintituitive, maybe we should blame our limited cognitive abilities and not our intuitions, just as Glenn Gould could intuitively play any musical piece he read and most of us can´t, is due to a limitation in cognition, not in our intuitions. So, our intuitions aren´t "wrong" in the sense that a certain concept is outside the scope of our understanding, but it is "wrong" is the sense it may choose the incorrect understanding of a certain concept due to the limitations of the intuition-bearing subject.
Kane bro
good lecture
16:39
Simple. Because the epistemic risk in empirical theories is much less than the risk in non-empirical theories.
please provide some reference to read
As I mentioned, most of the stuff on naturalized metaphysics is drawn from "Scientific Metaphysics", edited by Ladyman, Ross, and Kincaid and "Every Thing Must Go", especially chapter 1, by Ladyman and Ross.
Newtonian mechanics wasn't wrong. Classical mechanics that simplified Newtonian mechanics was wrong. Newtonian gravity was wrong, though.
Please! As an English person, surely you should be using an 's' and not a 'z' to spell 'naturalized'/'naturalised' and 'theorizing'/'theorising'.
At this rate, even educated Americans might start thinking I can't spell properly when they read what I write, because I use the UK spelling for words!
You wouldn't spell 'colour' or 'honour' the American way!
(I realise that this has no relevance at all to the philosophical content of the video, but... Come on!)
'z' looks better
@@KaneB agreed. Is that an objective asthetic judgament?