How Can you not believe in the Metaphysical?

[John Doe]

And I haven't bastardized the meaning of metaphysical. There are several definitions. While one is a subsect of philosophy another is the study of the fundamental workings of the universe as explained by something other than the western scientific method.

And for the last time, what is YOUR definition of metaphysical that you're arguing with?

 

[scourge99]

Truth is, if it isn't true in 100% of all cases, then it can't be true as a rule.

But you haven't shown it isn't true in all cases. All you have done is speculated that it may not be true in all cases. In all the cases we know of it is true. That is all the science EVER claims: to claim things which conform to the evidence.

The science to which I am referring is the established rules that we have that say that spontaneous generation is always bubkiss. This is logically incorrect

Science is always tentative. In all the evidence we have things do not generate spontaneously (excluding recent theories such as virtual particles). If you had evidence of something that did then our understanding would change to address that evidence. All you have is speculation.

 

[Cephus]

Why would I? TCM doesn't use science in order to operate effectively.

Because it's the only way we know that can demonstrate that TCM actually operates effectively by removing potential compromising elements from the test. If you're relying on individual reports and not on legitimate evidence for what is happening and why it is or is not working, then you're faced with massive methodological problems. But of course, I don't think you're really interested in whether or not it works, you just want to believe so you do.

Acupuncture. For now anyway. Science doesn't understand it but it works.

Prove it works. Go ahead. If you don't understand how it works, how can you possibly claim that it does?

That's the problem with all of your claims is you're just pulling them out of your ass. Just because a bunch of ignorant people are doing something doesn't mean that thing works. Since you're making the claim that it does, it rests solely on your shoulders to back it up. You have utterly failed to do so and therefore your claims can safely be discarded as the rantings of a crackpot. Come up with something credible or remain a laughing stock.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

And for the last time, what is YOUR definition of metaphysical that you're arguing with?

Well... Really both when you think about it; I'll explain below

All I need to do is prove that cause and effect aren't true in 100% of cases. It could be true in 99.99% of all cases, but it isn't a universal rule (as virtual particles are also pointing out; thank you, I hadn't heard about that)

Since you seem to already agree with me that cause and effect are true, I'll construct the argument another way.

1. Cause and Effect are not true in 100% of all cases
2. Classical Metaphysics relies on the idea of things that exist that were not created.
3. Current physics in and of itself says that for every perceived effect there must be an underlying cause

4. In order to explain 100% of all cases you must acknowledge that effects do not necessarily follow from causes
5. In order to explain 100% of all cases you must acknowledge the Metaphysical explanations of uncaused existence to be true

 

[John Doe]

Well... Really both when you think about it; I'll explain below

All I need to do is prove that cause and effect aren't true in 100% of cases. It could be true in 99.99% of all cases, but it isn't a universal rule (as virtual particles are also pointing out; thank you, I hadn't heard about that)

Since you seem to already agree with me that cause and effect are true, I'll construct the argument another way.

1. Cause and Effect are not true in 100% of all cases
2. Classical Metaphysics relies on the idea of things that exist that were not created.
3. Current physics in and of itself says that for every perceived effect there must be an underlying cause

4. In order to explain 100% of all cases you must acknowledge that effects do not necessarily follow from causes
5. In order to explain 100% of all cases you must acknowledge the Metaphysical explanations of uncaused existence to be true

You still haven't given anyone a flat out definition of metaphysical.

Metaphysical is:

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Metaphysics: Metaphysics investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.

 

[Orion]

Because it's the only way we know that can demonstrate that TCM actually operates effectively by removing potential compromising elements from the test.

From the Western scientific-cultural mindset, that is how you would want to digest and disseminate information, yes. And I understand that. When I sit in a science class, I understand the methodology and what it demands; I know what works and what doesn't according to science. Likewise, when I have lived in China and sat in a TCM theory class, I understand the demands of their philosophical methodology, what works and what doesn't.

What you are asking me to do is use apples to analyze oranges. That's not how it works. The two methodologies are not compatible for arriving at explanations of pathology, but on the treatment side, they are compatible, which is why Western medicine and TCM can and are being bridged in treatment modalities.

If you're relying on individual reports and not on legitimate evidence for what is happening and why it is or is not working, then you're faced with massive methodological problems. But of course, I don't think you're really interested in whether or not it works, you just want to believe so you do.

It's arrogant to presume that just because I haven't tested it with the methodology that you approve of, that I am simply believing in a placebo. I have seen more than plenty of observational evidence in my career to know that it works, even though my scientific mind has no explanation. My TCM mind knows how it works. That fact aside, there is growing scientific evidence that it does work, especially acupuncture.

Even though the way they arrive at these answers are different, science is understanding that acupuncture modifies pain receptors via endorphin transmission in the brain, but the reason why exact points trigger certain responses is not yet known. I am curious to see what science comes up with. In the mean time, I have seen more than enough times that it works so I'm not concerned.

Prove it works. Go ahead. If you don't understand how it works, how can you possibly claim that it does?

I do understand how it works, it's just that the how is not explained scientifically. This is what you're not grasping. There in fact are other ideologies to explain how things work, and that framework functions effectively. TCM theory already has its philosophical explanation. It has been ironed out over a period of 1,200 years of refinement. Science too will likely arrive at its explanation soon. The two are complementary, not opposed.

That's the problem with all of your claims is you're just pulling them out of your ass. Just because a bunch of ignorant people are doing something doesn't mean that thing works. Since you're making the claim that it does, it rests solely on your shoulders to back it up. You have utterly failed to do so and therefore your claims can safely be discarded as the rantings of a crackpot. Come up with something credible or remain a laughing stock.

If you're going to be immature and insulting, then this debate is over. I respect what system works for you, for investigating your world.

You lack the willingness to grasp the main premise, which is that more than one effective system exists for explaining phenomena. The fact that you aren't familiar with those other systems - since you haven't studied them in depth as I have - is the probable reason. You assume science is the system and not a system and this is why you are becoming frustrated by my responses. I can't help you there. You would require a mental paradigm shift to see this topic the way I do, and that's something you need to provide for yourself.

 

[Cephus]

If you're going to be immature and insulting, then this debate is over.

There never was a debate because you could never support any of your claims! That's what a debate requires, the ability to back up what you say with something other than random keystrokes. That's why all religious and most philosophical debates fail, because people on the pseudo-scientific side can only keep repeating the same unsupported nonsense over and over and over and ignore any and all calls for them to put up or shut up.

And you think that's going to get your side any respect? I certainly hope not!

 

[Orion]

There never was a debate because you could never support any of your claims!

You want me to support my claims with science, and as I said, TCM is not science. If you had asked me to explain TCM from within the perspective of TCM's framework, I would have done that, and maybe you would have seen why it works. But you just keep shouting "pseudo-science!" and thus close yourself off to all learning.

As long as you will only accept science as the valid reasoning for medicine, I cannot possibly explain to you why TCM works.

And you think that's going to get your side any respect? I certainly hope not!

I wasn't aware that I was on any "side". This just goes to show the type of mindset you are employing, of you being in one place and I'm just "over there". By continuing to polarize the debate and positioning yourself on the "superior side", you are not going to make any headway.

All genuine dialogue must first begin with respect. You have no interest in this, and so I have no interest in you.

As I said before, your loss.

 

[scourge99]

Traditional Chinese Medicine theory pre-dates science.

So does bleeding and using non-sterilized medical equipment. if anything, ancient medicine does far more harm than good. Granted there may be some value in extracting the useful bits but they are often unrefined and are, in fact, vastly improved upon using the scientific method and the cumulative knowledge of science.

This notion that "old-medicine = better medicine" is specious.

It uses a qi based understanding of the body and relies on the philosophy of energy flows to explain why things work. It's why acupuncture and a lot of herbology works and science does not yet understand why it does. There are similar philosophical explanations for regional-based medicinal knowledge all over the world.

And perhaps such people are onto something. I would strongly support research into these areas to uncover verifiable truths that can benefit humanity rather than the pseudoscience that it is often perpetuated as.

"What works" is a better way of looking at our world as opposed to what science says is right or wrong.

Science doesn't say what is "right" or "wrong". Science is simply a method for supporting or discrediting hypotheses.

Science can only support or discredit. It cannot prove or make absolute statements. There is only data and an interpretation of that data.

Science is diagnostic and relies on conditions remaining consistent in order to be tested.

This is incorrect. Science only requires that a control is used in order to test.

There are complex connections and forces at work all the time which operate in a holistic fashion, and they are not going to detach from one another and sit still so that science can test them all. The synergy of the system is just as important as its components.

Don't you find it odd that we have discovered all these complex things such as gravitation, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, in all this chaos with science?

Scientific progress is valuable but limited in scope because of this. Please note I'm not writing off science. It has contributed a lot to humanity's greater body of knowledge, but it's not the only method of doing so.

I have great contention with your theory regarding science and believe it is false. Thus I don't find your conclusion compelling.

 

[JoeMama]

Apart from people who just don't know or aren't fully convinced either way, I don't understand how someone can not believe in at least a higher power/order. The basic question being if you just ask "How?" over and over you eventually come to a cause for which you cannot find an effect. Regardless of the idea that "we just don't know yet" as soon as we find out, we will have another effect for which we must find another cause. And even if you don't believe in and established god/religion, you must believe in something metaphysical because science/physics will tell you that everything must have a cause leading to a causal chain that stretches to infinity. If you end the chain at any point claiming that something "always was" then you have just relied on the metaphysical (as in something that operates beyond physics).

(This isn't necessarily my philosophy, but a definitely a cogent argument)

You treat the metaphysical as a fall-back position - which sometimes is fine; but when the fall-back position has no backing, that's the problem.

We know so little about the world - there are numerous universes, and every time telescopes become finer, we learn more.

And regarding the science comment that it can't tell you the initial step - again, we know so little! Physics hasn't even touched the tip of the iceberg.

But maybe we just weren't dealt the laws of physics that will find out the answer - but other 'parallel universes' (according to current theory; this stuff isn't just conspiracy stuff) different laws of physics apply. Like there are scientists who now propose that there could be other big bangs happening all the time...each creating a new 'world'.

But that's one opinion out there

 

[Orion]

So does bleeding and using non-sterilized medical equipment.

Except we know those methods don't work so we no longer use them. TCM is not equivalent to that. As a Doctor of TCM, I use what works. If it didn't work, I wouldn't use it.

If anything, ancient medicine does far more harm than good.

Depends on what system and what methods you are talking about.

This notion that "old-medicine = better medicine" is specious.

Medicine that works = better medicine. I made no assertion about age equaling value, only that TCM's age has permitted it to use non-scientific observation and philosophical constructs to explain many things about the body. Many things about TCM run parallel to Western medicine... for example, in TCM's view of anatomy, the kidneys and bladder are connected, the liver and gall bladder are connected; it's the same in Western medicine. However, in TCM, the lungs and small intestine are connected. When people have the onset of pneumonia, they usually have diarrhea. This is not something that Western medicine has connected. But it's true nonetheless.

And perhaps such people are onto something. I would strongly support research into these areas to uncover verifiable truths that can benefit humanity rather than the pseudoscience that it is often perpetuated as.

It can't be pseudo-science if it's not perpetuating itself as such. This is the same logical fallacy that Cephus made. TCM is not calling itself science, and it has no need to pretend that it is. It's you who keeps labeling it as such.

Truth can be verified in other ways.

Science doesn't say what is "right" or "wrong". Science is simply a method for supporting or discrediting hypotheses.

Within its own framework. Yes.

It's a basic Nietzschean claim that ALL methods and/or systems are based upon premises that can not be questioned within the framework of that method. Therefore, all methods and or systems are ultimately based upon faith in the premise. Science, religion, knowledge of self, philosophy and all of its varied methods are inherently subjective because of this. You can talk of value, in so far as which is the 'better', but to speak of truth, and the discovery of "truthful" knowledge, has many varied methods.

I am not claiming that TCM has no flaws; likewise I am not claiming that science is purely flawed. I am simply putting forth that you can arrive at similar truths but with completely different methodologies.

Science can only support or discredit. It cannot prove or make absolute statements. There is only data and an interpretation of that data.

Science is not 100% objective. If it were, we'd have an ultimate truth, and there is no such thing.

This is incorrect. Science only requires that a control is used in order to test.

I have no problem with this.

Don't you find it odd that we have discovered all these complex things such as gravitation, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, in all this chaos with science?

I don't find it odd. I find it amazing. Science has given us so much through its lens of viewing the world. But it's not the only lens, that's all I'm trying to say. You seem to be on the defensive, but please understand, I'm not saying that science is wrong. On the contrary, it has its truths. I have also been trained in science and find it valuable. I just think it's erroneous to push it as the truth and not a truth.

I have great contention with your theory regarding science and believe it is false. Thus I don't find your conclusion compelling.

It's because you, like Cephus, assume that science is under attack. It's not. Science and other systems can be complementary. The problem is zealousness in the method. I have worked with scientists who are working alongside with Eastern philosophical systems to bridge knowledge and form a synergy of the two. They don't perceive them as enemies as you do.

Again, the flaw is not TCM or science, it is the concept that they reside on "sides" and you have to choose one, or that one has to be correct while the other cannot be.

 

[mikhail]

Apart from people who just don't know or aren't fully convinced either way, I don't understand how someone can not believe in at least a higher power/order. The basic question being if you just ask "How?" over and over you eventually come to a cause for which you cannot find an effect. Regardless of the idea that "we just don't know yet" as soon as we find out, we will have another effect for which we must find another cause. And even if you don't believe in and established god/religion, you must believe in something metaphysical because science/physics will tell you that everything must have a cause leading to a causal chain that stretches to infinity. If you end the chain at any point claiming that something "always was" then you have just relied on the metaphysical (as in something that operates beyond physics).

Well what does it matter.I mean if your talking about a relgion that would involve this higher power having some kind of guidance etc.Prove to me god basically wrote a book.

 

[MrFungus420]

Apart from people who just don't know or aren't fully convinced either way, I don't understand how someone can not believe in at least a higher power/order.

First, define what you mean by "higher power/order".

Then, what is your evidence supporting it's existence?

The basic question being if you just ask "How?" over and over you eventually come to a cause for which you cannot find an effect.

"Strike that, reverse it."
- WW

Regardless of the idea that "we just don't know yet" as soon as we find out, we will have another effect for which we must find another cause. And even if you don't believe in and established god/religion, you must believe in something metaphysical because science/physics will tell you that everything must have a cause leading to a causal chain that stretches to infinity. If you end the chain at any point claiming that something "always was" then you have just relied on the metaphysical (as in something that operates beyond physics).

There is nothing metaphysical about "we don't know".

As it stands now, as far as I know at least, science has thus far only gone back to the Big Bang (technically, to within one unit of Plank Time of the BB). At that point, we are at a blank wall. We have no knowledge beyond that. We don't know if there is anything beyond that wall. We don't know if the Big Bang was a singular, unique event. we don't know if it was part of some sort of cycle, we don't know if it was just another link in an infinite chain.

We have a chain of events going back to the Big Bang. At that point, our knowledge just ends.

 

[drz-400]

what if the universe is finite?

Both general relativity and newtonian phisics have been proven wrong at the microscopic level.

 

[John Doe]

what if the universe is finite?

Both general relativity and newtonian phisics have been proven wrong at the microscopic level.

Since when has inductive reasoning proven anything?

Not proven wrong, just not compatible. But prove is such a strong word.

 

[Mach]

I consider the possibility of something happening that is outside the bounds of our current knowledge base (which is how new areas of research begin) whereas you have resolved yourself to only accept those explanations that can be conceived given our current scientific framework. That isn't progress or imagination, that is stagnation.

Imagining is great.
Beliving those imaginary things are real, is not. You cross a line when you do that.

Read what you wrote. You consider things outside your knowledge? Really? Can they really be "outside your knowledge", if you consider "them"? It's a mess.

We all know if a doctor is going to treat you for a life-threatening illness that you actually prefer the old, stagnant, evidence-based treatment. When you are hungry you go for the old, stagnant, evidence-based food that you know wont' kill you and is good and satisfies your hunger.

Only in this one case do you paradoxically veer from what we know that you actually prefer (facts), into trying to convince yourself, and probably us, that we should really belief in imaginary things as being real....

Why is that? Life is a mystery. Let's not act like you have solved it, or that it can be solved.

 

[Cephus]

You want me to support my claims with science, and as I said, TCM is not science.

I want you to support your claims in any credible, objective way possible. You cannot do so, apparently, which puts your claims into the crackpot variety. You've not demonstrated that your claims are at all valid, that they work, that they're reliable in any way, shape or form and you're getting upset at me for pointing it out.

Sure, tell us all another one.

 

[Orion]

I want you to support your claims in any credible, objective way possible. You cannot do so, apparently, which puts your claims into the crackpot variety. You've not demonstrated that your claims are at all valid, that they work, that they're reliable in any way, shape or form and you're getting upset at me for pointing it out.

Sure, tell us all another one.

You've already said that "credible" = science, so you've left me with no recourse.

It was nice debating with you.

:2wave:

 

[scourge99]

You've already said that "credible" = science, so you've left me with no recourse.

It was nice debating with you.

:2wave:

How do you know what you do works?
Because people get better.

How do you know that its what you do that makes people better?
Because you've used a control group without your techniques and a test group with your techniques. The test group faired better than random chance would allow.

Congratulations! You've just used science!

If you wanted to confirm the integrity of your results you would publish your experiment to have others reproduce your experiments results and to critique your experiment.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Imagining is great.
Beliving those imaginary things are real, is not. You cross a line when you do that.

Read what you wrote. You consider things outside your knowledge? Really? Can they really be "outside your knowledge", if you consider "them"? It's a mess.

We all know if a doctor is going to treat you for a life-threatening illness that you actually prefer the old, stagnant, evidence-based treatment. When you are hungry you go for the old, stagnant, evidence-based food that you know wont' kill you and is good and satisfies your hunger.

Only in this one case do you paradoxically veer from what we know that you actually prefer (facts), into trying to convince yourself, and probably us, that we should really belief in imaginary things as being real....

Why is that? Life is a mystery. Let's not act like you have solved it, or that it can be solved.

You are one the people that say "we just don't know" as per my original post. That is perfectly acceptable.

Attempting to explain the origins of the universe using a cause and effect based science is impossible, any one who claims otherwise hasn't thought things through.

Believing in (and having a logical argument for) what you imagine is the only way progress happens. You can deny it, but you're only fooling yourself.

 

[John Doe]

You are one the people that say "we just don't know" as per my original post. That is perfectly acceptable.

This should be the *only* acceptable answer. Nobody knows.

cause and effect based science

Doesn't actually make sense, by the way. Science is just a method. Case and effect based method?

 

[FreshlyMinted]

I feel I need to add an addendum to this.

I don't think that science is bunk. I love it very much and think we need to make scientific study the primary objective of human existence.

However, I feel we need to be doing so across all avenues. Keep searching for answers and ramp up scientific funding, but let's get philosophers in on this too. And theologians. And anthropologists. And musicians. Expressions of truth come in many forms. Don't give everyone equal status of ideas (or funding), but just don't close minds to where the answer may be. We're looking for a needle in a haystack, but we don't even know where the haystack is.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

This should be the *only* acceptable answer. Nobody knows.

Right, but go one step beyond. Nobody knows how to know

Doesn't actually make sense, by the way. Science is just a method. Case and effect based method?

Sure, you're just arguing semantics. Take whatever terms you disagree with and just use your intuition.

 

[Orion]

How do you know what you do works?
Because people get better.

How do you know that its what you do that makes people better?
Because you've used a control group without your techniques and a test group with your techniques. The test group faired better than random chance would allow.

Congratulations! You've just used science!

Essentially, yes. That is what observation based medicine is about. So I guess you could say that the Chinese were using "science" before science existed, even though they didn't think of it that way.

If you wanted to confirm the integrity of your results you would publish your experiment to have others reproduce your experiments results and to critique your experiment.

It's a bit more complicated than that. It's not just about having a control. Once the control proves that it works, you revert to other theoretical models to explain why it worked. It's the why that makes TCM and science incompatible. Scientific papers would not accept a qi based explanation. TCM is all about moving and balancing energy, not focusing on the source of the disease itself.

For example, in Western medicine, if someone has a virus, you look for an anti-virus, or give an anti-biotic. In the mean time, you give secondary medications to suppress symptoms. TCM just looks at balancing the body... it had no use for concepts such as viruses. A deficiency is still a deficiency, virus or no virus. When you balance the body, it heals itself, or never gets infected in the first place. Infection happens because the body is out of balance.