To get a little more into why I think it’s not worth doing metaphysics
Surely you can value whatever you like...or are you saying its not possible to make progress in metaphysics ?
all metaphysical claims must converge to account for our observations.
They must retrodict the same observations—phenomena—but that doesn’t mean they have to agree on the behind-the-scenes mechanisms .
which means we have no way to distinguish them except by non-observable evidence,
Non observable “evidence” can consist of conditions like simplicity and consistency, which are accessible, even if not to the senses. They are also used in science.
They must retrodict the same observations—phenomena—but that doesn’t mean they have to agree on the behind-the-scenes mechanisms .
That’s true. But the behind-the-scenes mechanisms kind of don’t matter then, other than as useful intuitive models. And I’m not saying there’s no value to be had in good intuitive models. Just that treating metaphysics as something other than looking for fake frameworks is not useful.
It you place a terminal value on knowing how things really work, then it has a value for you, even if it’s basically academic and lacking in instrumental value
Instrumental value doesn’t float free of terminal value..it’s got to be instrumental for something.
Yes, of course, because metaphysical claims are still claims, and some of them are clearly false because they contradict available evidence. However, once we have a metaphysical claim that can’t easily be disproven, now we have a claim that’s up against the limits of our ability to know, and an important aspect we’re leaving out here is that metaphysical claims make claims about the unknowable (otherwise they would be physical claims, not metaphysical ones).
The best outcome a metaphysical claim can hope for is “not yet proven wrong”.
Surely you can value whatever you like...or are you saying its not possible to make progress in metaphysics ?
They must retrodict the same observations—phenomena—but that doesn’t mean they have to agree on the behind-the-scenes mechanisms .
Non observable “evidence” can consist of conditions like simplicity and consistency, which are accessible, even if not to the senses. They are also used in science.
That’s true. But the behind-the-scenes mechanisms kind of don’t matter then, other than as useful intuitive models. And I’m not saying there’s no value to be had in good intuitive models. Just that treating metaphysics as something other than looking for fake frameworks is not useful.
It you place a terminal value on knowing how things really work, then it has a value for you, even if it’s basically academic and lacking in instrumental value
Instrumental value doesn’t float free of terminal value..it’s got to be instrumental for something.
Sure, but I argue that you can’t know metaphysics anyway, so it has no value even if you think you know it!
Know for certain? I think you have.conceded that some metaphysical claims are less likely than others.
Yes, of course, because metaphysical claims are still claims, and some of them are clearly false because they contradict available evidence. However, once we have a metaphysical claim that can’t easily be disproven, now we have a claim that’s up against the limits of our ability to know, and an important aspect we’re leaving out here is that metaphysical claims make claims about the unknowable (otherwise they would be physical claims, not metaphysical ones).
The best outcome a metaphysical claim can hope for is “not yet proven wrong”.