Metaphysics vs Ontology

[Renee Katz]

For a long time I did not know the difference between ontology and metaphysics. I thought they were basically the same thing. But then while doing some research I came along this view: Ontology, along with cosmology, are two subjects of metaphysics. Ontology studies the nature of existence, or "being qua being," and cosmology studies the nature and origins of the universe. A good way to illustrate the difference between cosmology and ontology is to look at the cosmological and ontological arguments for the existence of God - they are both trying to prove the same thing, but in two different ways.

Now, for Objectivism, I guess it is safe to assume that ontology and metaphysics are interchangeable. Rand effectively banished cosmology from metaphysics on the grounds that it was properly the concern of science and not philosophy. I can kinda see where she's coming from. However, cosmology (philosophy) deals with very broad, abstract principles that I don't think science by itself would be able to answer (the nature of space, time, causality, etc.). I'm interested in hearing other opinions on this.

[John Dailey]

Renee:

~ I appreciate your conundrum. I too ran into this perplexity of terminology use. 'Official' defs aside, I found that many olde philosophers used them as synonyms and others definitely did not; confusing, to be sure. Though most scientists of olde rarely used the term ontology, I've come to see the worthwhileness of the term's use as, as you, properly a sub-category of Cosmology (getting into talking 'science'-talk about the ultimate constituents of the universe's most elemental contents, such as quarks, strings, dark matter and whatnot thereby.) --- Sensibly, 'science' terminology...as Cosmology is.

~ As you say, metaphysics does seem more properly concerned with 'basics' that science, per se, need not be known much about...as Rand pointed out re everyone having a 'philosophy' (ergo, metaphysics, epistemology, etc...in extreme 'basics.') --- Definitely 'philosophy' terminology.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

ADDENDUM:

~ Further, I find the concept of 'causality' overlapping both science and philosophy. In philosophy, the question is 'What, if there, is it all about?" whilst in science (different perspective, here), given the presumption (and a hopefully clear definition) of it, the question becomes "What are the dynamics of it, entity-to-entity?"

LLAP

J:D

PS: Good question; been meaning to bring this up a while ago, myself. Hope others chime in (other than quoting dictionaries.)

[BaalChatzaf]

For a long time I did not know the difference between ontology and metaphysics. I thought they were basically the same thing. But then while doing some research I came along this view: Ontology, along with cosmology, are two subjects of metaphysics. Ontology studies the nature of existence, or "being qua being," and cosmology studies the nature and origins of the universe. A good way to illustrate the difference between cosmology and ontology is to look at the cosmological and ontological arguments for the existence of God - they are both trying to prove the same thing, but in two different ways.

Cosmology is a branch of astrophysics and is a genuine science. That it, it makes potentially falsifiable predictions. One of the earlier predictions was made by George Gamow, to with, that if the big bang were true there should be a uniform in all directions radiation at about 2.3 kelvin (a little above absolute zero). This prediction was verified by Wilson and Penzias at Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1965. This verification established the big bang theory and eliminated Fred Hoyles theory of a steady state cosmos. Cosmological theory also correctly predicts the relative amounts of hydrogen, helium and lithium in free space and predicts the creation of heavier elements from the explosion of supernova stars.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Martin Radwin]

For a long time I did not know the difference between ontology and metaphysics. I thought they were basically the same thing. But then while doing some research I came along this view: Ontology, along with cosmology, are two subjects of metaphysics. Ontology studies the nature of existence, or "being qua being," and cosmology studies the nature and origins of the universe. A good way to illustrate the difference between cosmology and ontology is to look at the cosmological and ontological arguments for the existence of God - they are both trying to prove the same thing, but in two different ways.

Cosmology is a branch of astrophysics and is a genuine science. That it, it makes potentially falsifiable predictions. One of the earlier predictions was made by George Gamow, to with, that if the big bang were true there should be a uniform in all directions radiation at about 2.3 kelvin (a little above absolute zero). This prediction was verified by Wilson and Penzias at Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1965. This verification established the big bang theory and eliminated Fred Hoyles theory of a steady state cosmos. Cosmological theory also correctly predicts the relative amounts of hydrogen, helium and lithium in free space and predicts the creation of heavier elements from the explosion of supernova stars.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

I'm surprised that you got this one wrong, given your strong background in physics. Gamow did predict the existence of a background black body radiation from the big bang. But he wasn't even close on his prediction of the average temperature of 2.3 degrees kelvin. As I recall, he predicted a temperature of about 40 degrees kelvin. It is also worth nothing that there was an astronomer (I can't recall his name offhand) who did much more accurately predict this background temperature, and this astronomer preceded Gamow and was not working within the framework of the big bang.

Regarding the big bang theory correctly predicting the abundance of light elements, I suspect that this is rather debatable, given the number of free parameters in the model. These parameters can always be adjusted after the fact to fit the observed data. I don't think that any version of the big bang ever made accurate predictions of light element abundance prior to the existence of this data.

Martin

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

I'm surprised that you got this one wrong, given your strong background in physics. Gamow did predict the existence of a background black body radiation from the big bang. But he wasn't even close on his prediction of the average temperature of 2.3 degrees kelvin. As I recall, he predicted a temperature of about 40 degrees kelvin. It is also worth nothing that there was an astronomer (I can't recall his name offhand) who did much more accurately predict this background temperature, and this astronomer preceded Gamow and was not working within the framework of the big bang.

Regarding the big bang theory correctly predicting the abundance of light elements, I suspect that this is rather debatable, given the number of free parameters in the model. These parameters can always be adjusted after the fact to fit the observed data. I don't think that any version of the big bang ever made accurate predictions of light element abundance prior to the existence of this data.

Martin

From the Wiki article:

Timeline of cosmic microwave background astronomy

The cosmic microwave background was predicted in 1948 by George Gamow and Ralph Alpher, and by Alpher and Robert Herman. Moreover, Alpher and Herman were able to estimate the temperature of the cosmic microwave background to be 5 K, though two years later, they re-estimated it at 28 K.[18] Although there were several previous estimates of the temperature of space (see timeline), these suffered from two flaws. First, they were measurements of the effective temperature of space, and did not suggest that space was filled with a thermal Planck spectrum; second, they are dependent on our special place at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy and did not suggest the radiation is isotropic. Moreover, they would yield very different predictions if Earth happened to be located elsewhere in the universe.[19]

---------------------- end extract -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The better estimate was made by Dicke et al over at Princeton. They were trying to scrounge up the money to test the prediction of the residual temperature of the B.B. when Wilson and Penzias brought them a windfall from their spare antenna

over at Murray Hill.

As to having lots of parameters you could also fault the Standard Model which is the greatest physics theory ever constructed. The S.M. has over a dozen parameters all determined empirically. Warts and all S.M. grounds most of our technology.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

~ Now THAT'S 'ontology', Renee.

LLAP

J:D

[Renee Katz]

Cosmology is a branch of astrophysics and is a genuine science. That it, it makes potentially falsifiable predictions.

The word 'cosmology' is also used in philosophy. What I was interested in is whether Rand was right in saying that the subject matter of cosmology (time, space, matter, the origins of the universe, etc) is properly left to science and not philosophy.

[Dragonfly]

What I was interested in is whether Rand was right in saying that the subject matter of cosmology (time, space, matter, the origins of the universe, etc) is properly left to science and not philosophy.

Yes, Rand was definitely right in saying that. Not that she always practiced what she preached, not to mention the clown duo Peikoff&Harriman, who went completely against Rand in this respect.

[Renee Katz]

... the clown duo Peikoff&Harriman, who went completely against Rand in this respect.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this. You're saying that Peikoff tried to do some cosmology?

[Reidy]

Curious as to what dictionary you consulted. My understanding is that cosmology was a part of philosophy centuries ago, before natural science came into its own, but not since the Renaissance. So were anatomy and chemistry. The sum of the world's knowledge was small enough to fit into one head - if that head belonged to Aristotle or Plato or Descartes.

The only time I can recall Rand using the term was to say that Aristotle's cosmology and the Bible's were worthless. She said (in her prep notes to Atlas Shrugged, I think) that his failure to keep philosophy and natural science separate was one of his big faults. True of his astronomy and mechanics, though he was a great biologist.

In modern times "ontology" and "metaphysics" are synonyms, and cosmology is part of the history of philosophy - specifically, of those ancient and medieval philosophers who speculated about how the heavens are put together.

[Dragonfly]

... the clown duo Peikoff&Harriman, who went completely against Rand in this respect.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this. You're saying that Peikoff tried to do some cosmology?

Yes. For example, he maintains that the Big Bang theory is wrong on philosophical grounds, and that Einsteins general relativity theory consists of unphysical rationalizations. See also here. I think he also claims (at least many Objectivists do) that the universe cannot be infinitely large. If that ain't cosmology...

[Dragonfly]

Curious as to what dictionary you consulted. My understanding is that cosmology was a part of philosophy centuries ago, before natural science came into its own, but not since the Renaissance. So were anatomy and chemistry. The sum of the world's knowledge was small enough to fit into one head - if that head belonged to Aristotle or Plato or Descartes.

See for example here:

cos·mol·o·gy n. pl. cos·mol·o·gies

1. The study of the physical universe considered as a totality of phenomena in time and space.

2.

a. The astrophysical study of the history, structure, and constituent dynamics of the universe.

b. A specific theory or model of this structure and these dynamics.

[John Dailey]

~ I think that too many, who should really know better, think that because Rand and/or Piekoff evinced some thoughts/speculations (non-philosophically argued by Rand; hello?) on Cosmology/Anthropology/Xenobiology/whatever-'science', that they had no buisness doing so...since they were PHILOSOPHERS, and therefore were supposed to not think/speculate about science-stuff! Give it a break, guys!

~ Now, I gather that Piekoff has some epistemological arguments about where Cosmology 'should not' be going (er, has gone); I'm not up on the details, but, correct or not, it's his arguments that should be criticized...and all I read is criticisms of his conclusions. I suggest that someone spell out his arguments and tackle those, not merely his end points that are disliked.

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 5, 2008 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

~ Getting back to this thread's original question by Renee Katz, may I suggest checking out...

Ontology and 'entities'

LLAP

J:D

PS: Notice that at least some of the questions posited as implied by the subject are inherently unanswerable by 'philosophy' (qua 'philosophy'), ergo, the chronic refs to 'science' throughout the article. 'Ontology' is definitely a term which overlaps contexts.

PPS: I'm not aware that Rand ever used the term; that's interesting in itself.

Edited January 5, 2008 by John Dailey

[Dragonfly]

~ Now, I gather that Piekoff has some epistemological arguments about where Cosmology 'should not' be going (er, has gone); I'm not up on the details, but, correct or not, it's his arguments that should be criticized...and all I read is criticisms of his conclusions. I suggest that someone spell out his arguments and tackle those, not merely his end points that are disliked.

Arguments? Peikoff has no arguments, he just makes ex cathedra statements about things he obviously doesn't understand.

I'll give just one example of his "arguments" (from The Ominous Parallels):

Decades ago, the exponents of purposefully guided, objective cognition - which is what scientists had once been - began yielding to two newer breeds: the narrow technicians and the punch-drunk theoreticians. The former are intent on amassing disconnected bits of experimental data, with no clear idea of context, wider meaning, or overall cognitive goal. The latter - trained in a Kantian skepticism by Dewey, Carnap, Heisenberg, Gödel and many others - turn out increasingly arbitrary speculations while stressing the power of physical theory; not its power to advance man's confidence or make reality intelligible, but to achieve the opposite results. Quantum mechanics, the theoreticians started to say, refutes causality, light waves refute logic, relativity refutes common sense, thermodynamics refutes hope, scientific law is old-fashioned, explanation is impossible, electrons are a myth.

I've seldom seen so much nonsense in a short paragraph. It is full of completely arbitrary statements that are dead wrong or just unintelligible. If you can quote some real argument by Peikoff for his views on cosmology, by all means tell us. I haven't found it.

[John Dailey]

Dragon:

~ Such may be as you interpret that old book, but what I was referring to was the latest tape-lectures others have referred to re his supporting (with his own arguments) some other lecturer (Harrimen? I can't keep track) on the subject of physics and its contemporary theories accepted (re QM, Relativity, etc.) --- Lectures I can't afford, but here and there have seen they've been referred to.

LLAP

J:D

[Dragonfly]

Like Harriman's $1195 DVD course... Sorry, but I don't take such references seriously. And while OP may be old, the same conclusions can be drawn from what I've heard from Peikoff&Harriman in the DIMwit course (see the thread about that for the details). So all the fairy tales about great arguments in tape courses that are only bought by the true believers who have money to spare are not relevant. If an argument cannot be presented in writing, it should be ignored.

[BaalChatzaf]

Like Harriman's $1195 DVD course... Sorry, but I don't take such references seriously. And while OP may be old, the same conclusions can be drawn from what I've heard from Peikoff&Harriman in the DIMwit course (see the thread about that for the details). So all the fairy tales about great arguments in tape courses that are only bought by the true believers who have money to spare are not relevant. If an argument cannot be presented in writing, it should be ignored.

Why does this remind me of Scientology? $1195? You are not kidding are you?

For $0.00 you can crank up several MIT courses on physics and electrodynamics. Walter Lewin's course MIT physics 8.02 is excellent. The lab work is missing of course, but the video record lectures are top notch.

Go here:

http://web.mit.edu/smcs/8.02/

It won't cost you a cent.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

~ Good point, Dragon, about your 'writing' argument (wonder why they don't make it into a booklet and sell such for, oh, $150 apiece? I, and no doubt many "O'ists" could handle that. I'm sure most can't handle...)

~ 1195 %#@*'n $ ??? Do you know how many cigarettes that can buy? Man, with Ginsu Knives thrown in, what an Infomercial that'd make (add the .95 to it though.) --- I'm starting to appreciate the anti-Capitalist 'highway robbery' label's meaning at this point. --- Apart from that, clearly only fairly-rich scholars would risk that much for a lecture-series arguing against-the-grain of 'mainstream' science-theories.

~ Still, I'd like to know the actual 'arguments'...if such be there, as unarguably 'valid.'

LLAP

J:D

[Renee Katz]

Reidy, that is an interesting opinion. I got the definition from dictionary.com.

On the science stuff: I don't think anyone's saying that Peikoff or whoever aren't ALLOWED to speculate on scientific theories, the debate is over whether this is a proper subject for philosophy.

On another note, I am extremely suspicious of any physics/cosmology done after 1900. I think most of you would agree that when science says that the universe came from nothing or that they have "disproved" the law of identity, then it's time to be skeptical.

Oh, and Harriman's lecture on physics and philosophy is, I think, quite good and you can watch it for free on the ARI homepage (you have to register).

[tjohnson]

On another note, I am extremely suspicious of any physics/cosmology done after 1900. I think most of you would agree that when science says that the universe came from nothing or that they have "disproved" the law of identity, then it's time to be skeptical.

Yes, physics really took a turn for the worse around 1900, all of a sudden it started spewing garbage.

[Dragonfly]

On another note, I am extremely suspicious of any physics/cosmology done after 1900. I think most of you would agree that when science says that the universe came from nothing or that they have "disproved" the law of identity, then it's time to be skeptical.

Yes, physics really took a turn for the worse around 1900, all of a sudden it started spewing garbage.

Now this is garbage. Where do you think your computer comes from? Your television, mobile phone, digital camera, stereo installation, all your electronic gadgets? Lasers, all kinds of medical scanners, nuclear reactors, gps? Blank out. We got them "somehow". I'll tell you: none of these would exist without quantum mechanics, the most successful physical theory ever. So spare me that crap about physics spewing garbage. This is the reason that such ignorant scientific nitwits like Peikoff should be lambasted for their anti-science propaganda. This is really pissing me off.

[BaalChatzaf]

On another note, I am extremely suspicious of any physics/cosmology done after 1900. I think most of you would agree that when science says that the universe came from nothing or that they have "disproved" the law of identity, then it's time to be skeptical.

Yes, physics really took a turn for the worse around 1900, all of a sudden it started spewing garbage.

Now this is garbage. Where do you think your computer comes from? Your television, mobile phone, digital camera, stereo installation, all your electronic gadgets? Lasers, all kinds of medical scanners, nuclear reactors, gps? Blank out. We got them "somehow". I'll tell you: none of these would exist without quantum mechanics, the most successful physical theory ever. So spare me that crap about physics spewing garbage. This is the reason that such ignorant scientific nitwits like Peikoff should be lambasted for their anti-science propaganda. This is really pissing me off.

I think GS was being sarcastic. Just a guess, mind you!

Dragonfly. You did a me. Shame!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

Well, this is in fact what Peikoff and Harriman are saying, and it is repeated by many Objectivists.