Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Definition of metaphysics (Webster's Dictionary)I don’t view metaphysics as science, and yet some people do.
What is the real value of metaphysics?
And why do you you think metaphysics better than science? Or why do you think it is better than other philosophies?
If I'm sick, use a cellphone, drive a car etc, I'm dealing with the fruits of science.Both metaphysics and science are divisions of philosophy but I think science is more practical when dealing with reality
Science may be metaphysical, but metaphysics is not science. It's philosophy.I don’t view metaphysics as science, and yet some people do.
What is the real value of metaphysics?
And why do you you think metaphysics better than science? Or why do you think it is better than other philosophies?
I thin science is physics in meta-physics.I don’t view metaphysics as science, and yet some people do.
What is the real value of metaphysics?
And why do you you think metaphysics better than science? Or why do you think it is better than other philosophies?
I've seen a few materialistic Christians.I don’t view metaphysics as science, and yet some people do.
What is the real value of metaphysics?
And why do you you think metaphysics better than science? Or why do you think it is better than other philosophies?
Science may be metaphysical, but metaphysics is not science. It's philosophy.
One of the definitions of "metaphysics" is "the basis of science".
If I'm sick, use a cellphone, drive a car etc, I'm dealing with the fruits of science.
To place metaphysics over science is like saying that philosophy is more important and we should go back to living in caves.
To me, metaphysics is a simple thing made complicated. I don't find intellectualizing about reality to be very useful.
Ah...no.I thin science is physics in meta-physics.
Metaphysics don't require any EVIDENCE, which is absolutely essential with science.
It is the EVIDENCE that either verified the hypothesis or debunk/refute the hypothesis, not metaphysical preconception.
The role of metaphysics is not to define, but to fracture the world into 'bits' and classify them into groupings. Effectively, it is naming. The idea is that a larger thing can be known by the assembly of its components.It should never be forgotten that no science has any meaning beyond its metaphysics. We should remember that metaphysics defines everything we "know" and that we may need to tweak our definitions and axioms in light of new knowledge which means redoing or reinterpreting experiment as well. Our beliefs creep into the scientific process at every stage which is why we must use experiment to keep our science and ourselves tied to reality.
Without 'bits' named, classified and grouped, there would be nothing for science to uncover. It is "the basis of science" in the sense that it gave us the names of atoms, minerals, flora and fauna, geological events, atmospheric conditions, and spatial and astronomical measurements.One of the definitions of "metaphysics" is "the basis of science".
Let me guess: The History Channel?@cladking
Please don't go off-topic and talk about absurd pseudoscience Ancient Language and Ancient Science again, because we have already spent enough time on those topic of yours in the Ancient Reality thread, a thread that you had started last year.
I don't want you divert this topic to pyramid-building, the use of ramps Pyramid Texts, or your bloody homo omnisciensis. If you wish to discuss metaphysics, then that's great, but please, please use other examples, and not the same ones used you have already gone over at Ancient Reality.
I would like to focus on just metaphysics and science.
Thank you.
First. Spoken like someone who has never study science before, nor perform experiment."Evidence" is irrelevant to the establishment of theory. We each use logic and evidence to make hypothesis or design experiment. In very real ways we even use evidence to make observation since we all see what we believe. But theory can only be created by experiment. I personally am willing to extend the definition of "experiment" to include more observation/ logic/ physical evidence but at some point there must be a concrete means of establishing theory. Even "prophesy" (prediction) is insufficient alone to establish theory.
I don’t really want to talk about it, but let just say, cladking like to spin his personal pet and outlandish theory that he knows better than all than translators and all the archaeologists.Let me guess: The History Channel?
I do agree with you, that science is trying to answer the HOW questions (eg how does it work, or how to make use of it), whether by bits or by whole, as you put on.The role of metaphysics is not to define, but to fracture the world into 'bits' and classify them into groupings. Effectively, it is naming. The idea is that a larger thing can be known by the assembly of its components.
Science, on the other hand, makes use of those 'bits' to describe the way things work in theory. Science is the "how," and metaphysics is the "what."
They are as related as the how is to the what--no more, no less.