structure for 'Philosophy'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

1. Philosophy / E. Nature of Metaphysics / 4. Metaphysics as Science

[metaphysics as physical science at the highest level]

25 ideas
Natural history supports physical knowledge, which supports metaphysical knowledge [Bacon]
     Full Idea: Knowledges are as pyramides, whereof history is the basis. So of natural philosophy, the basis is natural history, the stage next the basis is physic; the stage next the vertical point is metaphysic.
     From: Francis Bacon (The Advancement of Learning [1605], II.VII.6)
     A reaction: The father of modern science keeps a place for metaphysics, as the most abstract level above the physical sciences. I would say he is right. It leads to my own slogan: science is the servant of philosophy.
Metaphysics is the roots of the tree of science [Descartes]
     Full Idea: The whole of philosophy is like a tree. The roots are metaphysics, the trunk is physics, and the branches emerging from the trunk are all the other sciences.
     From: René Descartes (Preface to 'Principles of Philosophy' [1647]), quoted by A.W. Moore - The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics 01.2
     A reaction: If Descartes had not believed this he would not have bothered with metaphysics, and philosophy might have been dead by 1650.
I am just an under-labourer, clearing the ground in preparation for knowledge [Locke]
     Full Idea: 'Tis ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge.
     From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], Epistle)
     A reaction: A famous statement of the new humility of empirical philosophy, which defers to science as the great advancer of knowledge. Personally I view scientists as under-labourers, who discover the physical facts which are needed for wisdom.
Leibniz tried to combine mechanistic physics with scholastic metaphysics [Leibniz, by Pasnau]
     Full Idea: Leibniz made a sustained attempt to combine a mechanistic physics with something like a scholastic metaphysics.
     From: report of Gottfried Leibniz (works [1690]) by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 20.1
     A reaction: This seems to me clear enough, and a lot of current philosophers seem to underestimate how Aristotelian Leibniz was.
Metaphysics must understand the world thoroughly, as a principal source of knowledge [Schopenhauer]
     Full Idea: The task of metaphysics is not to pass over experience in which the world exists, but to understand it thoroughly, since inner and outer experience are certainly the principal source of all knowledge.
     From: Arthur Schopenhauer (The World as Will and Idea [1819], I 428), quoted by Christopher Janaway - Schopenhauer 3 'Will'
     A reaction: I wonder to what extent he meant ordinary experience, and to what extent he was advocating the study if science?
Metaphysics rests on observations, but ones so common we hardly notice them [Peirce]
     Full Idea: Metaphysics really rests on observations, whether consciously or not. The only reason this is not recognised is that it rests upon kinds of phenomena with which every man's experience is so saturated that he pays no particular attention to them.
     From: Charles Sanders Peirce (The Approach to Metaphysics [1898], p.311)
     A reaction: I think this is entirely right. I would say that the only thing that distinguishes metaphysical thought is its extreme level of generality, which makes it very hard to substantiate, because it is so remote from its evidential base.
Physicists accept particles, points and instants, while pretending they don't do metaphysics [Russell]
     Full Idea: Physicists, ignorant and contemptuous of philosophy, have been content to assume their particles, points and instants in practice, while contending, with ironical politeness, that their concepts laid no claim to metaphysical validity.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Our Knowledge of the External World [1914], 4)
     A reaction: Presumably physicists are allowed to wave their hands and utter the word 'instrumentalism', and then get on with the job. They just have to ensure they never speculate about what is being measured.
The business of metaphysics is to describe the world [Russell]
     Full Idea: It seems to me that the business of metaphysics is to describe the world.
     From: Bertrand Russell (The Philosophy of Logical Atomism [1918], §III)
     A reaction: At least he believed in metaphysics. Presumably he intends to describe the world in terms of its categories, rather than cataloguing every blade of grass.
Quine rejects Carnap's view that science and philosophy are distinct [Quine, by Boulter]
     Full Idea: Quine rejects Carnap's view that the methods of science and philosophy are distinct.
     From: report of Willard Quine (On Carnap's Views on Ontology [1951]) by Stephen Boulter - Why Medieval Philosophy Matters 5
     A reaction: I can't decide this one. Leibniz agreed with Carnap, but rated philosophy more highly. I like the view of philosophy as continuous with science, but that doesn't make it a branch of science. I incline towards science being a branch of philosophy.
Philosophy is largely concerned with finding the minimum that science could get by with [Quine]
     Full Idea: Philosophy is in large part concerned with ...what science could get along with, could be reconstructed by means of, as distinct from what science has historically made us of.
     From: Willard Quine (Mr Strawson on Logical Theory [1953], V)
     A reaction: This nicely summarises the programme for the whole of the philosophy of David Lewis, who was Quine's pupil. If you start by asking what it could 'get by with', it is not surprising that simplicity is the top intellectual virtue for both of them.
Quine's naturalistic and empirical view is based entirely on first-order logic and set theory [Quine, by Mautner]
     Full Idea: Quine has aimed at a naturalistic and empirical world-view, and claims that first-order logic and set theory provide a framework sufficient for the articulation of our knowledge of the world.
     From: report of Willard Quine (Word and Object [1960]) by Thomas Mautner - Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy p.465
     A reaction: Consequently he is fairly eliminativist about meaning and mental states, and does without universals in his metaphysics. An impressively puritanical enterprise, taking Ockham's Razor to the limit, but I find it hard to swallow.
Ontology is highly abstract physics, containing placeholders and exclusions [Martin,CB]
     Full Idea: Ontology sets out an even more abstract model of how the world is than theoretical physics, a model that has placeholders for scientific results and excluders for tempting confusions.
     From: C.B. Martin (The Mind in Nature [2008], 04.6)
     A reaction: Most modern metaphysicians accept this account. The interesting (mildly!) question is whether physicists will accept it. If the metaphysics is really rooted in physics, a metaphysical physicist is better placed than a metaphysician knowing some physics.
The aim of 'post-metaphysical' philosophy is to interpret the sciences [Habermas, by Finlayson]
     Full Idea: For Habermas, the task of what he calls 'post-metaphysical' philosophy is to be a stand-in and interpreter for the specialized sciences.
     From: report of Jürgen Habermas (The Theory of Communicative Action [1981]) by James Gordon Finlayson - Habermas Ch.5:65
Ontology should give insight into or an explanation of the world revealed by science [Ellis]
     Full Idea: A good ontology should provide insight into, or offer some kind of explanation of, the salient general features of the world that has been revealed to us by science.
     From: Brian Ellis (Scientific Essentialism [2001], Intro)
     A reaction: I think I agree with this. The difficulty is that the most fundamental level revealed by science is a quantum one, so if you take a reductionist view then your ontology is both crazy, and resting on things which are not understood.
Metaphysics is concerned with the fundamental structure of reality as a whole [Lowe]
     Full Idea: Metaphysics is concerned with the fundamental structure of reality as a whole.
     From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.2)
     A reaction: I think it is vital to hang on to this big definition, focusing on ontology, and not retreat (like Kant) to the epistemological question of how humans happen to see reality, even if we are stuck with being humans.
Metaphysics is not about what exists or is true or essential; it is about the structure of reality [Sider]
     Full Idea: Metaphysics, at bottom, is about the fundamental structure of reality. Not about what's necessarily true. Not about what properties are essential. Not about conceptual analysis. Not about what there is. Structure.
     From: Theodore Sider (Writing the Book of the World [2011], 01)
     A reaction: The opening words of his book. I take them to be absolutely correct, and to articulate the new orthodoxy about metaphysics which has emerged since about 1995. He expands this as being about patterns, categories and joints.
Extreme doubts about metaphysics also threaten to undermine the science of unobservables [Sider]
     Full Idea: The most extreme critics of metaphysics base their critique on sweeping views about language (logical positivism), or knowledge (empiricism), ...but this notoriously threatens the science of unobservables as much as it threatens metaphysics.
     From: Theodore Sider (Writing the Book of the World [2011], 05.1)
     A reaction: These criticisms also threaten speculative physics (even about what is possibly observable).
The metaphysics of nature should focus on physics [Maudlin]
     Full Idea: Metaphysics, insofar as it is concerned with the natural world, can do no better than to reflect on physics.
     From: Tim Maudlin (The Metaphysics within Physics [2007], Intro)
     A reaction: I suppose so. Physics only works at one level of description. Metaphysics often works with concepts which only emerge at a more general level than physics. There are also many metaphysical problems which are of no interest to most physicists.
Metaphysics builds consilience networks across science [Ladyman/Ross]
     Full Idea: Metaphysics is the enterprise of critically elucidating consilience networks across the sciences.
     From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3)
     A reaction: I don't disagree with this. The issue, I think, is how abstract you are prepared to go. At high levels of abstraction, it is very hard to keep in touch with the empirical research. There are truths, though, at that high level. It is clearest in logic.
Progress in metaphysics must be tied to progress in science [Ladyman/Ross]
     Full Idea: To the extent that metaphysics is closely motivated by science, we should expect to make progress in metaphysics iff we can expect to make progress in science.
     From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3)
     A reaction: To defer to and respect science does not necessitate that metaphysics cannot do independent work. I take there to be truths at a high-level of abstraction that are independent of the physical sciences, just as there are truths of chess or economics.
Metaphysics must involve at least two scientific hypotheses, one fundamental, and add to explanation [Ladyman/Ross]
     Full Idea: Principle of Naturalist Closure: A serious metaphysical claim must involve at least two scientific hypotheses, at least one from fundamental physics, and explain more than what the two hypotheses explain separately.
     From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.3)
     A reaction: [compressed, from their longer qualified version] The idea that metaphysics should add to explanation is close to my heart. I am musing over whether essences add to explanation, which would be total anathema to Ladyman and Ross.
Some science is so general that it is metaphysical [Ladyman/Ross]
     Full Idea: Some scientific propositions are sufficiently general as themselves to be metaphysical. Our notion of metaphysics is thus recursive, and requires no attempt to identify a boundary between metaphysical and scientific propositions.
     From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 1.5 n45)
     A reaction: Note that this still leaves room for some metaphysics which is not science, though see Idea 14904 for their views on that.
Cutting-edge physics has little to offer metaphysics [Ladyman/Ross]
     Full Idea: There is little positive by way of implications for metaphysics that we can adduce from cutting-edge physics.
     From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 3.7.2)
     A reaction: My personal suspicion is that this will always be the case, even though there may be huge advances in physics, and I offer that as a reason why metaphysicians do not (pace Ladyman and Ross) need to study physics. They grasp 'negative' lessons.
The aim of metaphysics is to unite the special sciences with physics [Ladyman/Ross]
     Full Idea: The demand to unify the special sciences with physics is, according to us, the motivation for having any metaphysics at all.
     From: J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 4.1)
     A reaction: The crunch question is whether metaphysicians are allowed to develop their own concepts for this task, or whether they can only make links between the concepts employed by the scientists. I vote for the former.
Science rests on scholastic metaphysics, not on Hume, Kant or Carnap [Boulter]
     Full Idea: The metaphysical principles that allow the scientist to learn from experience are scholastic, not Humean or Kantian or those of twentieth-century positivism.
     From: Stephen Boulter (Why Medieval Philosophy Matters [2019], 2)
     A reaction: Love this. Most modern philosophers of science would be deeply outraged by this, but I reckon that careful and open-minded interviews with scientists would prove it to be correct. We want to know the essential nature of electrons.