Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8972 total)
157 online now:
Aussie, CosmicChimp, jar, Meddle, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 151 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,502 Year: 7,250/23,288 Month: 1,156/1,214 Week: 168/303 Day: 8/36 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   gravity
ringo
Member
Posts: 18106
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 30 of 81 (688263)
01-21-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadow71
01-18-2013 7:08 PM


shadow71 writes:

Is it natural or metaphysical?


I'm not happy with the notion that something could "be" metaphysical instead of natural. We can propose metaphysical explanations for phenomena that don't have a physical explanation (yet), such as lightning, but it's only the explanation that is either physical or metaphysical. The phenomenon itself just "is".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2013 7:08 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by shadow71, posted 01-21-2013 3:41 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18106
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 39 of 81 (688413)
01-22-2013 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by shadow71
01-21-2013 3:41 PM


shadow71 writes:

My intent was to ask is the cause of the phenomenon natural or metaphysical.


You seem to be using "metaphysical" as a synonym for "supernatural", which I don't think is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by shadow71, posted 01-21-2013 3:41 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by shadow71, posted 01-22-2013 4:57 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18106
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 42 of 81 (688527)
01-23-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by shadow71
01-22-2013 4:57 PM


shadow71 writes:

In the discpline of Philosphy you are correct, however I think it is being used in Schroeders book as per the definition, ie supernatural.


Of course the problem with "supernatural" explanations is that they're so often made redundant by natural explanations - e.g. lightning. I think we should regard "supernatural" as something like "ultraviolet" - i.e. "beyond visible light, "more" than visible light in the sense that it's more energetic, but not fundamentally different from visible light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by shadow71, posted 01-22-2013 4:57 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020