gnostic
The Lost One
You are stating the obvious, cladking.Science doesn't exist without language. Even mathematics needs a mathematical language to exist.
Of course, language is important, and I have never claim it don’t.
Both science and philosophy used language, including metaphysics, so what you are saying is moot.
There is no word in the English language that really means precisely what I mean by "metaphysics". But according to the 1952 unabridged Funk and Wagnalls this word means almost exactly what I mean by the "definitions and axioms that underlie science". I'm not talking about empty words, rhetoric, semantics, or philosophy here; I'm talking about the meaning of science and this meaning only exists in the terms that define science and how it works. I can't just say that the moon is made of green cheese and then continually adjust my data, experiments, and definitions in order to prove my point because this lies outside of the "basis of science".
A dictionary only give general definitions, is not really useful because it don’t really provide specifics in metaphysics.
Metaphysics only provide assumptions of something that exist, it doesn’t tell people to do experiment, to find evidences, to observe.
You keep trying to distinguish observation from experiments, but that’s what experiments are for, observation.
You keep ignorantly saying the “Look and see science” isn’t real science, but that’s what experimental science and empirical science are, observation through evidences gathering and experiments.
It is clear that you don’t understand the importance of evidences to science, and you are overrating the values of your outdated and utterly useless metaphysics.
You miss my point. When we perform a complex experiment we don't simultaneously test or experiment on its component parts. I'm not talking about checking the pressure gauges, I'm talking about not checking to make sure that theory related to pressure works.
Here, you are talking nonsense.
I was a former civil engineer, part of it was understanding the physics that applied to civil engineering, in hydrodynamics. Part of the curriculum in hydrodynamics understanding the pressure, flow rate, optimal inclination of the pipes, type of materials used in the pipes, the type of liquid that may affect the flow rates (eg viscous and density of liquid), etc.
Do you think we wouldn’t would make sure that the reality matched with theory or vice versa? If the theory don’t apply to actual measurements of pressures and flow rates, we wouldn’t be using this theory in our course?
You don’t need metaphysics to understand the fluid mechanics. If anything metaphysics is more of hindered than useful.
Please, cladking, stop trying give example that you clearly are too ignorant to understand. Or you are doing is providing strawman argument thinking that physicists and engineers don’t understand how pressures work.
I wouldn’t study a theory that doesn’t apply to my work. So your errant example is nothing more than pointless exercise of your ego.