This place sure goes in "spurts"

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:38:28 +1000
Peter Garrett <peter.garrett at optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:22:11 -0500
> "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > > This would be one of the splits between scientific philosophy and
> > > other branches of philosophy that allow for the imaginative
> > > element as above.
> > > 
> > > Peter
> > 
> > I'm as much a fan of good fiction as the next guy.  I recognize it
> > as fiction, though.
> 
> Well, if you regard the serious reading of philosophy as the reading
> of fiction, so be it :) There's this whole branch of philosophy known
> as "Metaphysics".... You might have heard of it...  ;-)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

From the site:
"Metaphysics has been continuously contended in history as vague or
untrue.

David Hume argued with his empiricist principle that all knowledge
involves either relations of ideas or matters of fact:

    If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school
metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract
reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any
experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No.
Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry
and illusion. — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"

...and, also:

"A.J. Ayer in "Language, Truth and Logic" using the verifiability
theory of meaning concluded that metaphysical propositions were neither
true nor false but strictly meaningless, as were religious views."

...plus:

"Karl Popper argued that metaphysical statements are not meaningless
statements, but rather not fallible, testable or provable
statements... i.e. neither empirical observations nor
logical arguments could falsify metaphysical statements to show them to
be true or false. Hence, a metaphysical statement usually implies an
idea about the world or about the universe, which may seem reasonable
but is ultimately not empirically testable."

OK, those quotes are found in the, "Criticism," part of the site's
article but, hey, they are really there and do exist!

> 
> There seem to be quite a few others too, strangely enough, and some
> crackpots spent their lives thinking about some of them *g*
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
> 
> Peter

You got that right; crackpots, one and all.

(the parenthetical comments following are my own)

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:

  philosophy
      n 1: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative
           by some group or school [syn: {doctrine}, {philosophy},
           {philosophical system}, {school of thought}, {ism}]

("accepted as authoritative?"  Ah, but only by some!  Scientific
discovery is reproducible, even by those who do not believe, just as
we each and all must obey the law of gravity even if we don't agree
with it and vote for its repeal.)

      2: the rational investigation of questions about existence and
         knowledge and ethics

(who defines what is rational?  Can I do it, please?)

      3: any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a
         situation; "self-indulgence was his only philosophy"; "my
         father's philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it"

("personal belief," says it all here.)

From The Devil's Dictionary (1881-1906) [devil]:

  PHILOSOPHY, n.  A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

(Now, that one I can agree with!)

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic
for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men
mistake medicine for magic. 
	Thomas Szasz