Metaphysics Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! == Criticism <!--'Metaphysical deflationism', 'Ontological deflationism', 'Antimetaphysicalism', and 'Anti-metaphysicalism' redirect here-->== [[File:Allan Ramsay - David Hume, 1711 - 1776. Historian and philosopher - Google Art Project.jpg|thumb|alt=Painting of David Hume|[[David Hume]] criticized metaphysicians for trying to arrive at knowledge outside the field of sensory experience.]] Despite its status as one of the main branches of philosophy, metaphysics has received numerous criticisms putting into question its status as a legitimate field of inquiry.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|van Inwagen|Sullivan|Bernstein|2023|loc=Β§ 5. Is Metaphysics Possible?}} | {{harvnb|Manley|2009|pp=1β2}} }}</ref> One type of criticism states that metaphysical inquiry is impossible because humans do not have the cognitive capacities needed to access the ultimate nature of reality.<ref>{{harvnb|van Inwagen|Sullivan|Bernstein|2023|loc=Β§ 5. Is Metaphysics Possible?}}</ref> This line of thought leads to a form of [[skepticism]] about the possibility of metaphysical knowledge. It is often followed by empiricists like Hume, who argue that there is no good [[Knowledge#Sources|source of metaphysical knowledge]] since metaphysics lies outside the field of [[Empirical evidence|empirical knowledge]] and relies on dubious intuitions about the realm beyond sensory experience. A closely related concern about the unreliability of metaphysical theorizing is that there a deep and lasting [[Disagreements (epistemology)|disagreements]] about metaphysical issues, indicating a lack of overall progress.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Rea|2021|pp=211β212}} | {{harvnb|Carroll|Markosian|2010|pp=16β17}} | {{harvnb|Koons|Pickavance|2015|pp=4β5}} }}</ref> Another criticism holds that the problem lies not with human cognitive abilities but with metaphysical statements themselves, which are claimed to be neither true nor false but [[Meaning (philosophy)|meaningless]]. According to [[Logical positivism|logical positivists]], for instance, the meaning of a statement is given by the procedure used to [[Verificationism|verify]] it, usually in terms of the [[observations]] that would confirm it. Based on this controversial assumption, they argue that metaphysical statements are meaningless since they do not make predictions about experience.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|van Inwagen|Sullivan|Bernstein|2023|loc=Β§ 5. Is Metaphysics Possible?}} | {{harvnb|Manley|2009|p=4}} | {{harvnb|Rea|2021|pp=212β215}} | {{harvnb|Koons|Pickavance|2015|p=5}} }}</ref> A slightly weaker position allows that metaphysical statements have meaning while holding that metaphysical disagreements are merely verbal disputes about different ways to describe the world. According to this view, the disagreement in the metaphysics of composition about whether there are tables or only particles arranged table-wise is a trivial debate about linguistic preferences without any substantive consequences for the nature of reality.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Manley|2009|pp=1β4}} | {{harvnb|Rea|2021|pp=213β215}} | {{harvnb|Tahko|2015|pp=71β72}} }}</ref> The position that metaphysical disputes have no meaning or no significant point is called '''''metaphysical''''' or '''''ontological deflationism'''''.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Manley|2009|pp=4, 15, 32}} | {{harvnb|Sider|2009|pp=386β387}} }}</ref> This view is opposed by serious metaphysicians, who contend that metaphysical disputes are about substantial features of the underlying structure of reality.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Manley|2009|pp=28, 36}} | {{harvnb|Kriegel|2016|pp=272β273}} }}</ref> A closely related debate between ontological [[Philosophical realism|realists]] and anti-realists concerns the question of whether there are any objective facts that determine which metaphysical theories are true.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Chalmers|2009|pp=77β78}} | {{harvnb|Loux|Crisp|2017|pp=304β305}} | {{harvnb|Tahko|2015|pp=65β66, 68}} }}</ref> A different criticism, formulated by [[Pragmatism|pragmatists]], sees the fault of metaphysics not in its cognitive ambitions or the meaninglessness of its statements, but in its practical irrelevance and lack of usefulness.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Koons|Pickavance|2015|p=5}} | {{harvnb|Macarthur|2020|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ra7QDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA166 166]}} }}</ref> It is questionable to what extent the criticisms of metaphysics affect the discipline as a whole or only certain issues or approaches in it. For example, it could be the case that certain metaphysical disputes are merely verbal while others are substantive.<ref>{{harvnb|Rea|2021|pp=215β216, 223β224}}</ref> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page