Bas C. van Fraassen - How Does Metaphysics Reveal Reality?

Some think metaphysics is ancient nonsense; others that it's the bizarre occult. How does modern metaphysics contribute to our understanding of the world? It asks the most profound questions: what kinds of things exist? How does causality work? Sound too abstract? How about: does God exist? Are you a soul?



Bas C. van Fraassen is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at San Francisco State University and the McCosh Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University.


Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[absolutelysobergeorge]

Peter Kingsley did a superb job in teasing out what was going on in Parmenides’ “On Nature”. I got my understanding from his book “Reality.”

[phonsefagan]

Most of our discoveries start with some kind of speculation, rooted in our ability to reason combined with some observation of the world. I see no problem at all with speculating on "first principles" or "laws" that appear to be beyond our current abilities to test: as long as we are clear about what we are doing. Did Democritus waste his time by speculating on the existence of atoms? Did Zeno waste his time bringing attention to our lack of understanding of the nature of space and time? I'd say no. These early "speculators" were laying the foundation for much of what came after. We don't yet know the deeper principles that we may yet discover. So, we keep pushing the limits.

I forget the specifics but, well before I'd given it much thought or study, I saw a renowned thinker argue that neuroscientists and AI engineers were wasting their time in trying to understand consciousness based on reductionist and materialist considerations. Well, I thought, at least they are trying. And who knows what unexpected things they might discover in the process. So far, history has not been kind to those who have been fooled into thinking they can define the absolute limits of what we can know. My bet is that this pattern is likely to continue.

[williamburts]

He said, " why have a truth if it can't be tested " well, the truth of knowing what it is like being a human being Isn't something you can test through studying the chemicals of the human body because it is something understood subjectively, so because we can't test it does that mean we can't know what it is like being a human being?

[havenbastion]

Metaphysics is all of the deepest "What is the nature of" questions. It doesn't reveal anything per-se. A philosophy is a coherent set of answers to a set of philosophical questions, metaphysical or otherwise. A good set of answers is coherent and can reveal something, but a bad set of answers is indistinguishable from arbitrary.

[victorshapona]

The Metaphysician often thinks in terms that Tesla presented, in that if one wishes to understand the Universe think in terms of Energy, Frequency and Vibration. Metaphysics understood that even thoughts are energy and the Neuroscientist now understand that as being so as is confirmed from the EEG waveforms they discovered back in the 1920's. You cannot put metaphysics in a box which is what they are trying do and this is one reason metaphysics continues to be valuable within philosophy and science. Einstein himself embraced metaphysical concepts and philosophical thought as being, ". . .distinction between a mere artisan, or a specialist and a real seeker of truth". It can be said that the metaphysician thinks outside the box and by doing so gives the box to the scientist to play with...

[michaelh.sanders]

No, you have that backwards. Metaphysics is based on deductive reasoning - you start with accepting a core idea as truth.
Science is based on the null hypothesis ; you try to prove an idea to be false. Big, big deference.

[tomazflegar]

I think metaphysics extend the scope what is possible not just for those who can see narrower field through their limited perception. The thing is that if you see more it does not mean you are less, what science postulates, but you are more, as you see broader picture, you can take an exampla of color blind person.

[Yzjoshuwave]

This is a non-sensical position that holds no water. The desire to embrace the questions of science is totally valid, but the validity of a logically sound argument, or the use of math in your explanation of any empirical function of reality hinges on the validity of logic itself - on its metaphysical underpinnings. Juggling mathematical equations that have been imported from outside the space of empirical study suggests that “the context” of these real, worldly connections that can’t be removed from our explanation also includes a deep field background of reason, which is necessarily referenced in making discrete judgment. Whether “black” exists doesn’t strike as me a particularly good gateway into metaphysics, but a radical denial of metaphysics just comes off as absurd.

[gettaasteroid]

contrary to the claims in the episode, the twentieth century analytic philosophers chose the most common metaphysical framework today. According to Jaegwon Kim, “it was the papers by Smart and Feigl that introduced the mind-body problem as mainstream metaphysical Problematik of analytical philosophy, and launched the debate that has continued to this day” see "Mind in A Physical World" So far from containing metaphysics, Analytic philosophy has invented many of the topics constantly revisited on CTT like structural realism via fine tuning and the multiverse, anomalous monism is constantly being propounded on this show consider van Fraassen's dismissal of Quine's first order seems motivated by such, and we hear about functionalism like when brains go bad et cetera

[SRAVALM]

I'm devoted to metaphysics, I love it.

The empirical view is subjective, even science, because as we all know, what we knew at ages 10, 20, 30, 50 is always different -- our perspective changes overtime as our underlining understanding, that being Wisdom which is an insight from within, develops. And as in science, nothing is concrete, not simply because science is endlessly revised, but because physics, that is nature, as in relativity from our points of view and causality, this realm of cause and effect, nothing is concrete, nothing permanent. What ultimate truth is there in what is impermanent or mutable? I even ask what Truth is, the very essence of, and once again negation seems to be thy best friend.
Metaphysics does just this: discussing what is allegedly thought of as of being discussed, or questioning the very question, seeking the very logic of logic itself. In this, arises the contradictions, which are subtle, and not known if you believe you are the body, the mind, etc. What we think we see with our eyes is not so, and what we think, from what we precieve, we construct our minds as so. The eyes and the mind very much work together. What you think your eyes precieve is the very construct that is now your mind.

Is metaphysics baloney? Metaphysics doesn't deny science of the phenomenal world, it simply realizes it isn't the Ultimate Truth.

[UltimateTruthsAndWorldviews]

actually, you can empirically test the effects and outcomes of metaphysical claims, if you need empirical data. First test and measure the amount of design and order found in the universe and prove a designer.

[ndenman]

I disagree on his take on Metaphysics. Not sure he understands the process and methods and the claims that metaphysics makes (I am a Thomist (broadly speaking)). A great book is Introduction to the Philosophy of Being - George P. Klubertanz. It's interesting they use the Platonic idea of Form instead of Aristotle's moderate Realism which, in my opinion, has a greater historical impact (mainly through Thomism). I do agree with his distaste for modal logic and 'many worlds'. There is a good argument against 'many worlds' in Real Essentialism - Oderberg.

[tedgrant]

Well I can't think of any other explanation.
It's the best we've come up with so far.
So I bet it's true.

[TheTroofSayer]

What is required is an axiomatic framework of fundamental assumptions, such as what Isaac Newton provided in Newtonian physics. My axiomatic assumptions, for example, would begin with taking entropy seriously. The established narrative (eg, multiverse theory, Neo-Darwinian genocentrism) has failed to do so, because they've failed to take top-down causation seriously. Another of my axioms seeks simplicity, generality, consistency across disciplines. Provided we stick within a framework of principled rigor, I can't see a problem with arriving at a metaphysical conclusion that checks off against all assumptions. And it is only at that point that an empiricist can say at 5:44, after asking the right questions, "Stop!" and be happy.

[andrewferg]

A "Distinguished Professor of Philosophy" who doesn't seem to have the slightest clue what metaphysics is about? Now that's a real metaphysical question...

[patrickm]

Fundamental matter particles are being discovered at Large Scale Hedron Colliders at Cern and Texas? Not depending on the machines, nature of matter, consciousness and mental factors can truly be discovered through deep Jhanic (samadi / focus / concentration) meditation. However, jhanic meditation wont come easy to any practitioner Tom, Dick and Harry. Meditation can be considered as one of the most important foundations of metaphysics. Deep (highly concentrated) meditation, (with its laser sharp focus) can truly discover fundamental nature of matter and mind.

[absolutelysobergeorge]

Both Hegel and Heidegger said that pure being and pure non-being are the same. (Nothing: A Sober Discussion of Being and Non-Being page 21)

[clarkharney]

Many seek metaphysical explanations beyond what we can test and have failed to find anything that fits within the limitations of reason.

[AboutTime_in]

Metaphysics is a way to see beyond the contradictions of science and logic and unify them in a different light.
The meaning of it all can be made up and is subject to interpretation, but under the hood, there are some universal principles (like that resonate with the core of maths and physics and can be explored through any creative practice.

[joym.]

What a relief! Finally, someone admits the human mind is a gerbil on its wheel and will always be asking questions. And language is set up for this compulsion.
I was wondering what interview would put an end to your series, your quest. If you don’t get off at this stop you’ll be riding on the MTA forever (with the Kingston Trio!).