“Am wrtiing” does not equate to “actually have”. You need to write it, answer objections and show that it works.
One might just as well argue that burden is on metaphysicists,
Metaphysicians.
to show that what they’re saying is useful.
Also, neither Eliezer nor I are logical positivists
OK. The basis of your claim that metaphysics is not the standard one. What, then, is it?
No. Metaphysics is meaningful by default, becuse the default meaning of “meaningful” is “comprehensible to others”
which metaphsyics is. (Your tried to shift the debate from “meaningful” to “useful”. Don’t). There’s no debate about whether ichthyology is meaningful. We don’t assume by default that academic disciplines are meaningless. The claim that metaphysics is meaningless is extrordinary, so the burden fals on the maker to defend it.
But anyway, I’m not going to play burden of proof tennis.
You have already started. You inititally placed the burden on your opponents. The fact that you are unwilling to justify that manouvre does not mean the burden rests there.
Mark’s final paragraph offered only contradictions (of our views) rather than counter-arguments.
I thoought Chalmers was meant as a counterexample—of scientific philosophy Done Right.
“Metaphysics” shouldn’t really be thought of as a description of the discipline the way, say, metamathematics is a description of a discipline. The name “metaphysics” is basically a historical accident. Aristotle’s Metaphysics was called that because it was published after his Physics, not because of any relationship between the content of physics and metaphysics. So while it’s true they’re not practicing meta-medicine, they’re not practicing meta-physics either.
Anyway, according to Wikipedia, both “metaphysicist” and “metaphysician” are correct.
“Am wrtiing” does not equate to “actually have”. You need to write it, answer objections and show that it works.
Metaphysicians.
OK. The basis of your claim that metaphysics is not the standard one. What, then, is it? No. Metaphysics is meaningful by default, becuse the default meaning of “meaningful” is “comprehensible to others” which metaphsyics is. (Your tried to shift the debate from “meaningful” to “useful”. Don’t). There’s no debate about whether ichthyology is meaningful. We don’t assume by default that academic disciplines are meaningless. The claim that metaphysics is meaningless is extrordinary, so the burden fals on the maker to defend it.
You have already started. You inititally placed the burden on your opponents. The fact that you are unwilling to justify that manouvre does not mean the burden rests there.
I thoought Chalmers was meant as a counterexample—of scientific philosophy Done Right.
Metaphysicians.
That being said, I don’t know whether ‘metaphysicists’ or ‘metaphysicians’ would be better.
It should be metaphysicist. They don’t practice metamedicine.
“Metaphysics” shouldn’t really be thought of as a description of the discipline the way, say, metamathematics is a description of a discipline. The name “metaphysics” is basically a historical accident. Aristotle’s Metaphysics was called that because it was published after his Physics, not because of any relationship between the content of physics and metaphysics. So while it’s true they’re not practicing meta-medicine, they’re not practicing meta-physics either.
Anyway, according to Wikipedia, both “metaphysicist” and “metaphysician” are correct.
“Metaphysician” is in Merria-m-Websete, “Metaphysicist” is not.