[Beestie]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

I think we're talking about different things here. I want to limit metaphysical to mean things which, if they exist at all, are necessarily beyond brute phyicalism.

I agree with your point that categorical error is what places certain events in the realm of the metaphysical when they really never belonged there. My real question, therefore, is how can we really be sure what does and doesn't belong there. How can we differentiate between categorical error and the truly metaphysical? The ancients were not aware of their error and although we are more enlightened, I'm pretty sure we are making some errors as well. If you want to only include those things for which error is unthinkable (God, for example), then justification is limited to the lack of a physical cause. These justifications are nasty because they are obviously difficult to refute using anything other than a seperate metaphysical explanation landing one in a "my construct can beat up your construct" zone. The idea that I introduced of metaphysical entropy - the idea that one day there will be nothing left for which there is not a physical cause implies that some metaphysical concepts will be shown to be physical concepts as our knowledge increases while other metaphysical objects/ideas will simply cease to exist until the metaphysical lexicon is void.

I think explanatory power and predictive power are pretty good things to put on the "Justification" list, ... We are justified in believing the theory of gravity because it has comprehensive explanatory power of current states of reality, and because it has predictive power for future events.

Is this only the case for metaphysical events, or for physical as well?... Can we say that this justification criterion for predictability reaches the point where we can positively assign the law of gravity to the "true" category?

Well, Newton's laws work fine until one starts to accellerate to around 20% of the speed of light then Einstein's equations become more accurate explainers of the way things act. So gravity, once thought absolute suddenly becomes elastic as other variables enter the fray. My point is that one cannot know with certainty that all the variables are accounted for until they assert themselves and become known. So the definition of true becomes that which has not yet been proven false. And there is no justification possible for asserting that a thing cannot be proven false since the fact that it hasn't already been proven false is evidence that the thing capable of proving it false has not yet come into being in the realm of whatever phenomenon is being explained. Hence all justification of events physical and metaphysical remains vulnerable to the unknown and since the unknown(s) cannot be quantified, the degree of vulnerability of any given justified truth can never be established.

The best definition of truth I ever encountered was "that upon which we all agree." Unfortunately, I can't recall who said it. But, its true

Let me give a for instance. A young girl in an oncology ward is told by her doctors and her parents that she is going to get better ... She believes this ... until the moment when she dies. She had a justified false belief. ... ask the question, would there have been some benefit to the girl having a justified true belief that she was going to die that was greater than the benefit she derived from her justified untrue belief that she was going to live? Basically, was it proper for her to exist in category I or category III?

Take the for instance that the young lady was a devout Christian. Since she did not know of her impending death, she was denied the opportunity to reconcile with her God, repent, receive final absolution, tell her loved ones how much they meant to her, do some final good deeds, etc., etc., etc. I'm not comfortable speculating on behalf of another which quadrant is proper.