How do i reconcile metaphysics with modern science?

well op
you shouldnt compare metaphysics to physics
could you guess why that is?

>It is hard to appreciate just how fucking stupid modern scientists actually are.
Okay, but let's see you understand advanced physics and mathematics and use that for useful research. Scientists don't have a consistent metaphysical position because they literally don't care. It's not their job. It doesn't affect their job.

Bunch of nonsense dravel.

Most real scientists who care to think about these things now consider themselves to be post-positivists.

Ok, what did you think was bad about it? What would you recommend instead?

not him but I would recommend not caring about metaphysics and keeping doing science the way it is work.
"Thinking is a disease of the eye". Fernando Pessoa
We only need to rethink thinks when current models start failing

I made a thread about the reconciliation of science and postmodernism/continental philosophy a bit ago and got very few responses. I was basically hoping for a discussion on whether postmodernist perspectives could be viewed as an acknowledgement of complexity, and if science could actually benefit from this. The question was inspired by Complexity and Postmodernism by Paul Cilliers, which I found to be a pretty interesting book: jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/2/2/review1.html. The person who responded recommended Reza Negarastani, but I haven't read him yet.

Anyone have thoughts or recommendations? I feel like there's got to be more discussion on this but I don't know where to look.

Many would argue that our current models are failing, though. That's why people are looking for something different.

Well thanks anons. I dunno. I think almost all of the people who think that they have understood post-dualism, understood saturated phenomenon, flesh-of-the-world type theories like Merleau-Ponty's, are still trapped within τέχνη fundamentally. The rigorous tying-down of Goethean science (recent book calls it "sweet science" and ties it to Blake as well, as all being versions of science pioneered during the initial Romantic era, and forgotten about in the positivist 19th century) is just one example. They all want to better mediate the difference between the noumenal and the phenomenal, but the difference is maintained, and no one really seems to care about getting at nature in its ownmost, supra-human being. There is no λόγος there, only a kind of maximised efficiency μῦθος, an acknowledgment that truth is "lie" and the real truth exceeds us or is indifferent to us.

You constantly see this stuff lately, last 20 or 30 years, coming from a lot of different places. Emerson's readings of nature are suddenly big right now, for example. Lots of work on Emerson being done, all along the lines of this kind of "let's open ourselves up to the ding an sich, let's be porous with nature!" shit. Rehashing Goethe and Schleiermacher and Kant, like Emerson did. Seen lots of work combining Deleuze's virtual with William James' virtual realism, lots of Jamesian virtual realisms and pragmatisms being proposed. And it's just the same shit over and over again, it's a kind of vague collation of post-positivist insights, all boiling down to the fundamentally idealist, Kantian position that was already completed by Nietzsche and James and Heidegger and Wittgenstein and Merleau-Ponty and Derrida and Deleuze and everybody else, in their own ways, generations ago. All this was known when Nietzsche said it, but now it's thick enough in the air that even mediocrities can get it, and they're all desperate to look cutting edge by saying it in Deleuze-speak and claiming it's new.

Why write a fucking article appropriating James' radical empiricism for a Deleuzian reading of it? Because you need to write something to get a job, that's why, and the two clearly speak to each other. But they speak to each other not by some magical coincidence you've discovered, but because Deleuze is just reprocessing ideas that James was already working with.

From what little I understand of object oriented ontology, it seems like more of the same to me. The dualism between knowledge and reality is maintained, but knowledge is wisely chastened, and we're supposed to be open to the things in themselves exceeding our knowledge of them. Big woop. Same old μῦθος with no attempt at λόγος, and the whole thing folds into τέχνη at the end of the day, because what is the fucking point of "mastering" μῦθος anyway? To make you better at doing science, a science which can have no final λόγος, so it only has existential (utilitarian) value.

>How do i reconcile metaphysics with modern science?
Faith in God.

>Engineering doesn't care about the "why" or the reality of their work, they only care that it has repeatable empirical results that can make products.
>science will push itself out of its false domain of prescriptive metaphysics and simply reside in the realm of pure mechanistic pragmatism, giving the reigns back over to rationalism to do the prescribing.

This would be a good thing if it happened for sure, but the problem is that science doesn't realise it is collapsing into engineering.

I was at a talk by some Hegelian philosopher and he quoted some leading neuroscientist saying that the entire field of neuroscience is still "pointology," that is, neuroscientists can point to the part of the brain that is lit up, when you subjectively report that you are experiencing some quale. For him to say that is insanely rare. These people, not just neuroscientists but philosophers of mind and cognitive scientists and neuropsychologists and all the other trendy combinations of epiphenomenalist mechanism with some prefix or suffix, think their pointology is the real deal. They think pointology points to substance, in esse.

>The power of scientists over nature grew bigger.

There's the whole thing in one sentence. Science has become "power over nature." This is Heidegger's and Adorno's/Horkheimer's whole point. Power is not understanding. It is the ability to bend to your will.

Who cares what gravity "is," in itself, when you can make it "do" things? Who cares what nature "is," what its inner reason is, when you can make it do things? And how is "doing things" defined? Well, since everything non-human and extra-ideal by definition, that is, nature, is that which is already in question here, we only have one domain remaining to us that can provide meanings and directives for our manipulation OF nature: the ideal. We're stuck back in our own heads again.

You want to increase "power" over everything-that-isn't-your-mind (i.e., nature). Part of that power is prediction of what it DOES, when subjected to certain stimuli, including observation. That's fine, but that makes you an engineer, not a scientist in the noblest sense of that term.

Nietzsche:
>We say it is "explanation"; but it is only in "description" that we are in advance of the older stages of knowledge and science.
>The peculiarity, for example, in every chemical process seems a "miracle," the same as before, just like all locomotion; nobody has "explained" impulse. How could we ever explain! We operate only with things which do not exist, with lines, surfaces, bodies, atoms, divisible times, divisible spaces how can explanation ever be possible when we first make everything a conception, our conception!

>It is sufficient to regard science as the exactest humanising of things that is possible; we always learn to describe ourselves more accurately by describing things and their successions.

Either elaborate or take your LARP elsewhere, using faith as a catch-all answer is a dead end.

Science does realize it's collapsing into engineering though, people complain about the technologization of science all the time. I have a few family members who are in fields that aren't immediately applicable to the creation or maintenance of a profitable technology and they are very aware of this. My cousin recently completed a physics PhD and is literally interviewing for a job at Wal-Mart right now (not anything to do with sales, back end supply chain stuff). He could probably get an academic job, but his wife's in med school and research doesn't pay.

>supra-human being

Can you explain what this is? I just started getting into traditionalism and I've been seeing this a lot. I've been meaning to look it up but I forgot about it until now.

with Weird Fiction