zurew

Yes and hence why you can never solve deep metaphysical disagreements with the method of falsification. And you can falsify further and further and maintain a bunch of metaphysical beliefs. When you use falsification you already pressupose that thats the right epistemic way to go about things. If someone presses you why you take falsification over any other thing, you are stumbled (even though thats where the substance and interesting thought-provoking debates would be) - for clarification by "you" im not talking about specifically you there.

So to recap one more time No argument was successfully made that would establish how knowing all metaphysical truths is necessary to progress in science. No argument was made that would show how having the stance that definitions cant exhaustively describe things is relevant to science and to the progression of science. There was no good response to the issue of adapting frames forever and hence why never needing to drop certain metaphysical beliefs. The response was "there is no good reason for x" - but even if that is granted, that doesn't necessitate dropping the frame, because you don't establish contradiction in their view - so the frame can be maintained further. There were certain things established that are all non-controversial, trivially true things that no one challenged in the firstplace. The idea that one needs to question their paradigm is a completely non-controversial claim that anyone who is even remotely into philosophy of science understands.

Thats an example where it does have practical implications, but its not at all clear thats the case with the other question or with all questions and stances. For that to work you would need to have only one logically possible hypothesis, but thats just never the case. And even general relativity is subject to reevaluation and recontextualization

To be clear - originally the way you framed things and the implication was that having your metaphysical frame is whats necessary to do science to work and to progress in science. Now we walked that all back into - in the vast majority of pragmatic cases, you dont need any of that and you can have mutually exclusive metaphysical views and still progress in science and achieve great things. Now you even walked back the idea that for a TOE to work in physics you would need to know all metaphysical truths and framed establishing a TOE (the way it is usually defined by physicists) as "shallow" . The gravity of your orginial claims are almost non-existent now when it comes to the pragmatic evaluation and implication of things. Notice that when you are cornered about issues of pragmatism, you resort to the rhetorical move of labeling it shallow and other things, because you realize that none of your thing is pragmatically necessary and shit can work perfectly well without you and your fancy work.

It can be silly, but not logically impossible - and hence the frame can be forever maintained and one can always say that there is a corner in the Universe where there is one unicorn or that there is a hidden dimension or that the Unicorn is invisible etc.

That just seems to validate what I said about not needing to drop certain things. You can maintain the belief that there is an external mind independent reality and you can have the view that there isn't a mind independent reality and a bunch of experiments and results will be compatible with both of those.

You frame it as an absolute when its not (again its sometimes true and its only true for a small subset of beliefs), and you seem to ignore the evolution of frames. Its not like you see the frames dropping as science progresses "Okay, there are no more christians guys - in order to do science you have to drop your belief in the Christian God". You can have a modern atheist and a modern christian be much more aligned on everything that has to do with science and the epistemology of science than a modern christian and a christian from 2000 years ago. To me it seems clear that there are change resistant metaphysical beliefs, that you won't ever need to reflect upon no matter what kind of experiment is conducted or done. You can maintain those forever, because you can almost always recontextualize things. And the reason why is because categorically you cant rule out all alternative hypotheses. The dissapearance of your shoes will be always compatible with a creature coming from a different dimension stealing it.

You are making it normative when it doesnt have to be. If by TOE we just mean a theory that can connect quantum theory and relativity , then explain to us how knowing all metaphysical facts would be relevant there? No im concerned with checking what kind of arguments we are working with and wondering why take certain views when you dont have to. You can maintain all your positions about God being true, omniscience being true and still not endorse the view that knowing all metaphysical facts is necessary for the creation of TOE. I dont understand how you get to that conclusion. The point is that in order for two people to run the same experiment they dont need to share the exact same set of metaphysical beliefs, they might align on certain things ,but not on the vast majority of things.

The point is if your definition of "total understanding" includes those things then it is trivially true. A non-trivially true move would be establishing how a TOE(Theory of everything) for physics would necessitate knowing all metaphysical facts.

We can speculate on the motivations - but I think its clear that it doesn't have to be something metaphysical (for example, it could be money), but even if it did have to do with metaphyiscs , the idea would be that they share some set of those beliefs (that are relevant to run the experiment) ,but when it comes to the other beliefs they hold, they disagree on those.

But there you are just making a trivial claim, a claim that is true by definition. "If you want to know all facts, including all metaphysical facts, then you need to know all metaphysical facts". But this is different from pragmatic goals.

They are irrelevant with respect to specific goals. Want to check how far you can throw a ball? The variable "Are you a Christian" wont be there and wont hold any weight.

Im not sure what you are trying to ask there. "What is the reason to run the experiment that leads to a discovery" or do you try to ask "What is the reason to run thought experiements ?"

That is compatible with not all facts being relevant to the manipulation of the Universe. Right, will wait on you pointing out the wrong things I said, and if you cant I will take it that you have no clue what you are talking about. Just like you had no arguments to establish Solipsism in the other thread and made a bunch of points that were compatible with non-solipsism as well.

Some of it is relevant, but the vast majority isn't. We can run down thought experiements where two scientists run the same experiement that leads to a new discovery (even though they have a bunch of mutally exclusive metaphysical beliefs).

You assert this ,but I dont think you have a supporting argument for it. Especially when it comes to predicting things, we ignore a lot of info ( I can make predictions about how a body will move without knowing what color it has, or whether it is sentient or not or any other random thing). This is also why certain equations are so elegant. There is a fuck ton of info reduction happening there.

I dont think thats true. Some of it will be relevant, but not all of it.

I said that (as a point to outline how silly it is to claim that one specific metaphysical stance is necessary to practice or to progress), not you - that was my original point that you responded to (where I outlined what issue I had with Leo) Thats right "regardless whether its true or false" - thats my point. It doesn't matter what kind of metaphysical beliefs you hold (at least in the vast majority of the cases), you still need to run those experiments and you still need to make those calculations etc.

There are certain metaphysical claims where its somewhat clear how they would limit the application of science - but its in the vast majority of the cases they don't seem to be relevant at all. For example, you can have any view you want on the metaphysics of free will - it wont change anything relevant how science is done. You can think a traditional God created the world, you will still run the experiments, and this is also the case if you are an atheist.

No, not necessarily because they can adapt their frames. They can redefine what they think Christianity is (this is one reason why a good chunk of them accept evolution now). But regardless , your question doesn't interact with the original point - which is the idea that Christianity would be a necessary foundation to do any science - which is obviously a silly claim.

Your claim wasnt just "philosophy of science is important for the progress of science" , because thats a trivial , non-controversial claim and people with completely different metaphysics to you can agree with that. You made specific metaphysical claims ,but didnt connect it back how adopting/understanding those specific claims are relevant to the progression of science.

They don't understand that reality is undefinable. They think they are defining it and they are missing all the most important aspects necessary for understanding reality. You can't just skip all the stuff I talk about. It's all fundamental. It does matter because science has wrong epistemology and wrong ontology, which limits science. Science is fundamentally about understanding reality. Their ability to understand reality is very self-limited. Understanding cannot be reduced to practical measures.

"Look scientist had metaphysical disageements". You think I object to that? Still waiting for you to substantiate and establish how taking the view that finite definitions are possible and that thinking that reality is not infinite prevents scientist from making any progress in science. Because those were your original claims that you are working so hard now to pivot as far away from as you possibly can, so that you dont need to address any of it.

"you need to use my glasses to see any object" But I see objects without those glasses "But my glasses are fundamental, you stupid guy, you havent had your god realization yet, and I dont need to explain or respond to your objection , because im above it"

@Miguel1 Waiting for your tone policing here. Surely this is not belittling and pure rhetoric , right? Like just notice it and think about how the smart enlightened guy didn't provide any substantive response to any of the critcisims. Like you read all that and think "hmm yeah, thats a completely normal response from a guy, who supposed to be very intelligent, secure and highly-conscious" @Leo Gura Dude, dont worry I understand it now, I am a little bit slow, but I get it now - we are supposed to be here to jerk you off, and to validate all your takes, and to validate how conscious and intelligent you are. Like yeah dude, the reason why you don't respond to the criticisms and questions - is surely not because you don't have any response , it can only be because you are above it.