Image by Septimiu Balica from http://Pixabay.com

Arguing the Non-Arguable Abstracts ...

As defined by the Merriam-Webster in b section of the definition metaphysics is an: “abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience”. Just to be clear I will not be talking about the division of philosophy that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology. And also I don’t want to offend anybody’s religion or belief system with this article so if you feel like bursting out in anger and run after me with sharp sticks I recommend that you stop reading just about here.

We’ve all been there, some friend telling us about an Ouija board session with their friends at one time or somebody getting so high and connect to aliens with their higher consciousness or some distant relative experiencing a spiritual bind of some sorts that affects their life so that they have to give someone money in exchange for holy water or something, I don’t know how this shit works.

If you’ve made it out so far with a fast internet connection you probably have an open-minded but somewhat reserved attitude towards the world too. You could be thinking, “Damn, those things never did happened to me but yeah man all these people cannot be lying about something this serious” or “Yeah I’m pretty sure these third-eye and soul travelling mambo-jambo is bullshit but they’re not disproven by science yet so I’m keeping an open mind”. If you have a common sense you’ll of course feel that way, this is how we approach to many things, sizing them up and not interacting with them and not taking them in.

I had a cheerful, anything is possible in the infinite possibilities that this and possibly many parallel universes offer in grand scheme of things attitude towards many things too. BUT -and that is a big but- I feel like scepticism and having a philosophical stand is way more important in this day and age.

Metaphysics has it’s roots in religions -and religions in metaphysics- and is a way of explaining natural phenomena. In the old days when science and observation of nature existed not for the search of truth but for nile river’s ebb-flow in seasons for perseverance of the basic accumulation of grains in the pyramid silos or something similar. This lead to things like “hephaestus started working his iron forges in the depths of Vesuvius volcano so we get lava rains” sort of explanations. Or like “spirits inhabit the olden ships and they sail around the world and some fly with spagettio dutchman” stuff.

Metaphysical explanations are for explaining the things that doesn’t make sense at the time.

Plainly, the metaphysical explanations are mainly for explaining the things that doesn’t make sense at the time. We know about the earth's crust and it’s movement causes the basic earthquakes and volcanic activities, we know about atmospheric pressure and whole a lot more. We disproved all the things metaphysics offer that are disprovable. But we hit a wall after that.

The Wall or What we can’t absolutely disprove -

So you give the believer of metaphysics the arguments for the things that you can give any evidence about, you refuted the refutable. Then you came to an abstract notion about the modus operandi of the universe or the human consciousness (or the possible robot consciousness, maybe even consciousness of the rocks and trees), so you don’t have the extensive evidence support of science, you’re in deep waters with the abstract idea sharks, what do you do, talk about your feelings and belief systems?

Here comes the Occam’s Razor -

For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable. - Wikipedia

Let’s put that in our inventory and learn about the enemy’s strategy;

Ad Hoc Hypothesis -

If someone wants to believe in leprechauns, they can avoid ever being proven wrong by using ad hoc hypotheses (e.g., by adding “they are invisible”, then “their motives are complex”, and so on).

Deferent and epicycle § Slang for bad science -

…Extra epicycles were invented to alleviate the growing errors that the Ptolemaic system noted as measurements became more accurate, particularly for Mars. According to this notion, epicycles are regarded by some as the paradigmatic example of bad science.

No true Scotsman -

A kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule (“no true Scotsman would do such a thing”; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).

Special pleading -

A form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

Russell’s teapot -

Philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Dragon in the Garage -

As an example of skeptical thinking, Sagan offers a story concerning a fire-breathing dragon that lives in his garage. When he persuades a rational, open-minded visitor to meet the dragon, the visitor remarks that they are unable to see the creature. Sagan replies that he “neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon”. The visitor suggests spreading flour on the floor so that the creature’s footprints might be seen, which Sagan says is a good idea, “but this dragon floats in the air”. When the visitor considers using an infra-red camera to view the creature’s invisible fire, Sagan explains that the fire is heatless. He continues to counter every proposed physical test with a reason why the test will not work.

Sagan concludes by asking: “Now what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.”

OK, back to me, these all were some of the strategies that people who refuse to let their illogical beliefs go. Chances are you’ve encountered a number of them. And you kind of have to accept that they all make sense unlike the metaphysical.

These are called logical fallacies, and there are lots more of them, if you like to look into them.

Now, dear reader, you have so much in your inventory to refute, to dismiss to identify fallacies. If we went back to Occam and his razor, he in essence says, that if there are more than one explanations of one thing, choose the simpler one. This is not a law, it’s not always true, but we have to have some scala to measure ideas and theses.

The problem is, when you leave some leeway in your argument for the opponent, they will make use of it with a logical fallacy in order to exploit the situation. You will argue the point until the end and then just when you’re about to drove it home, because of your “everything is possible in the end” attitude you will lose.

So, I argue, hell with it. Say with me, There is no metaphysics.

Yusuf Bektas

https://medium.com/kastor-priamos/metaphysics-is-bullshit-and-you-know-it-2d395d33b29a