This is such a big question, isn’t it? How great, you asked and then worked on your best understanding and shared it. I often ask myself, but I have no good answer, despite researching and trying to divine this many times. As it's one of my favorite hard questions, I often ask and see others responding with blank stares—as though it’s absurd to be asked in the first place.
I’ve followed you for decades and deeply value your podcast episodes. What I especially appreciate is how you leave room for uncertainty and further exploration across all three pillars: science, mathematics, and metaphysics in your question.
The word scaffolding is helpful — it evokes the idea of a framework we build with and from, without assuming we already know the final destination we will arrive at.
These days, many people treat science as if it delivers absolute certainty — one pillar among three. But science, math, and metaphysics reach their fullest strength only when synthesized. Too often, people invoke “science” or “the facts” as if uttering them wins the argument. Sometimes “facts” are presented as truth merely by assertion, without real understanding or scrutiny. Herein lies the challenge of being human in the early 21st Century.
I like the clarity and honesty of this approach. Metaphysics seems to be reasserting itself quite broadly and the consequences are and will be mixed. But I do wonder, what is the set of commitments or underlying principles that convince you that you should be doing science? Should that be a part of the minimum viable metaphysics?
Nice one, Jim. For a minute there I thought I was going to have to reach for YOUR pistol. ;-)
This is such a big question, isn’t it? How great, you asked and then worked on your best understanding and shared it. I often ask myself, but I have no good answer, despite researching and trying to divine this many times. As it's one of my favorite hard questions, I often ask and see others responding with blank stares—as though it’s absurd to be asked in the first place.
I’ve followed you for decades and deeply value your podcast episodes. What I especially appreciate is how you leave room for uncertainty and further exploration across all three pillars: science, mathematics, and metaphysics in your question.
The word scaffolding is helpful — it evokes the idea of a framework we build with and from, without assuming we already know the final destination we will arrive at.
These days, many people treat science as if it delivers absolute certainty — one pillar among three. But science, math, and metaphysics reach their fullest strength only when synthesized. Too often, people invoke “science” or “the facts” as if uttering them wins the argument. Sometimes “facts” are presented as truth merely by assertion, without real understanding or scrutiny. Herein lies the challenge of being human in the early 21st Century.
I like the clarity and honesty of this approach. Metaphysics seems to be reasserting itself quite broadly and the consequences are and will be mixed. But I do wonder, what is the set of commitments or underlying principles that convince you that you should be doing science? Should that be a part of the minimum viable metaphysics?