Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_iwhbhc5 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Most cosmologists say dark matter must exist. So far, it’s nowhere to be found. Examining the philosophy of science behind two rival theories can explain why. by ADefiniteDescription

I still don't understand. Doesn't this example then show that sure do your meta physics but don't every try and say that ideas apply to the real world of physics.

Aren't you saying, philosophers should keep their noses out of anything to do with the real world.

I'm happy either way, but when someone does some lsd and some metaphysics, they need to remember they are doing metaphysics which doesn't apply to reality.

The issue is when a philosopher does some metaphysics that doesn't' apply to reality and then for no reason thinks they have some deep insights into physics and reality.

edit: going back to the article it's like, I got this nice theory MOND from a philosophy point of view, it doesn't at all match up with reality and observations, maybe the whole idea of physics and reality is wrong.

1

koloquial t1_iwhgvtu wrote

I keep getting downvoted in this cancerous sub . Just google basic or advanced thought experiments. Also read the definition of metaphysics — there are some things that physically cannot be tested and we must use logic and thought experiments to make headway.

1

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_iwhhxqv wrote

I still don't understand how thought experiments which contradict with reality can be more useful that thought experiments which line up with reality.

1

koloquial t1_iwhj2yk wrote

If you can physically test something, there’s no need for the thought experiment. Google it, or I guess I can google it for you

1

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_iwhjsi1 wrote

Isn't that the whole point. We should concentrate on ideas that line up with physical experiments. We don't need thought experiments on ideas that contradict results from physical experiments.

1