• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Metaphysics: Is metaphysics better than science?

gnostic

The Lost One
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?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
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?
Definition of metaphysics (Webster's Dictionary)

1a(1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology metaphysics …
(2) : ontology sense 2
b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience steered philosophy away from metaphysics and toward the disciplines of natural science and linguistics



I like science but feel that metaphysics is more valuable than science as I, having a philosophical bent, need to ask who/what/why/how about my life and how to live it and feel about it.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
One of the definitions of "metaphysics" is "the basis of science".

Exactly what definitions of "metaphysics" and "science" are you referring to? Now days we have science that doesn't even employ experiment.
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Both metaphysics and science are divisions of philosophy but I think science is more practical when dealing with reality
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Both metaphysics and science are divisions of philosophy but I think science is more practical when dealing with reality
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. Practicing one of the spiritual paths is useful to me.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
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.

Metaphysics is posing "what is." It's the core facts on which we base beliefs. For instance, you might believe that existence exists, or that truth is true things, or that ideas weigh less than actual things. These sorts of things inform other beliefs without us even having to think of it.

Metaphysics isn't better than other philosophies, it's just the foundation of them. That'd be like saying that a mother is better than her children.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
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.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
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.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Science may be metaphysical, but metaphysics is not science. It's philosophy.

I agreed with that...and the rest of your replay.

But trying telling that to cladking.

One of the definitions of "metaphysics" is "the basis of science".

Many philosophies have the basis of science, but that doesn't make any of them, including metaphysics, "science".

The most fundamental problem with metaphysics, as with most other philosophies, it is using rationalising alone.

Metaphysics don't require any EVIDENCE, which is absolutely essential with science.

As long as you rationalise the existence of something, anything, including the supernatural, the paranormal, magic, then metaphysicians can do all that without presenting any shred of evidence.

The other problem with metaphysics, it allowed for preconception to be true, by default. The use of metaphysical judgement, also allowed for bias to taint any premise presented.

I think the philosophies of Empiricism, Methodological Naturalism and Logical Positivism are closer to science, because they all proposed that all hypotheses are false, until it has been rigorously tested with evidences or from the test results of controlled experiments.

Logic alone, don't validate any falsifiable hypothesis; EVIDENCES do. No hypotheses are true "by default".

It is the EVIDENCE that either verified the hypothesis or debunk/refute the hypothesis, not metaphysical preconception.

Those are the differences between metaphysics and science. One required evidences, the other don't.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
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.

Yes, I especially agreed with the part about metaphysics over-complicating things.

Metaphysics is focused on existence or nonexistence, whether the topic be natural or the supernatural.

So if you (not "you" personally) are big believer of the paranormal or supernatural, then you could rationalise the existence your preconception being true, regardless of any evidence contrary to the preconception.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Metaphysics don't require any EVIDENCE, which is absolutely essential with science.

Calling metaphysics "science" is like confusing flour, sugar, and milk for a cake. This analogy isn't wholly apt because science isn't made of metaphysics and our definitions and axioms have no substance in order to build anything palpable. You could say it is the recipe for a cake but this misses the point as well since in a real way the recipe is very much the cake also because it includes experimental results. We didn't experiment to determine axioms and definitions because these are (by definition) assumed and defined using the processes "invented" to underlie science.

Modern metaphysics is remarkably simple (other than experimental results). It is just a few definitions and axioms that underlie even the simplest experiments. It essentially boils down to "observation > experiment". Note the ">" instead of the word "and". Observation precedes experiment and without experiment no science has taken place. "Observation" and "experiment" are not "either/ or" but rather represent a methodology for coming to understand what we see (that I call reality).

But the metaphysics of ancient science was not at all simple. Their's was based on "observation > logic" and it couldn't have worked with our language because our language isn't logical. Ancient Language was logical and for this reason it was metaphysical. More accurately all languages other than our modern languages are metaphysical because this is the nature, the reality, of the way the primitive brain operates. Their language had the same natural logic that we quantify and call "mathematics". Animals think differently than we do because their languages program their brains differently and their language is a reflection of the wiring of those brains. These languages are probably all formatted similarly and probably it is like Ancient Language which all humans shared and operated the various civilizations until 2000 BC. When the language collapsed due to its growing complexity our history and all science was lost. We were only able to preserve most of the technology which sustained us until the advent of modern science made possible by the invention of modern scientific metaphysics. Curiously enough this metaphysics likely arose from individuals closely associated with religion.

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.
 
Last edited:

cladking

Well-Known Member
It is the EVIDENCE that either verified the hypothesis or debunk/refute the hypothesis, not metaphysical preconception.

"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.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
@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.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
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.
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.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
One of the definitions of "metaphysics" is "the basis of science".
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.

Is this argument with gnostic really about them being the same thing, though (metaphysics and science)?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
@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.
Let me guess: The History Channel? :)
 

gnostic

The Lost One
"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.
First. Spoken like someone who has never study science before, nor perform experiment.

Without evidences, then the "theory" isn't a scientific theory. Without evidences, then the hypothesis is (A) only theoretical model if it is at least mathematically feasible, or (B) it is pseudoscience.

What you don't seem to understand is that hypothesis and scientific theory are related. They both contained explanations, prediction, and the testing:
  1. how and where to find the evidences
  2. how to design the test (eg set up the experiments)
The difference between the two, is that hypothesis is a proposed theory, which (A) has not being tested yet, or (B) currently undergoing testings.

Do you understand what I mean by "hypothesis is a proposed theory"?

It mean that has neither been accepted or rejected yet, because it is a proposal, like a draft report. I will give you a couple of examples later, perhaps in my next post.

Whereas the scientific theory is a hypothesis that has already being rigorously tested, and reviewed and accepted by their peers.

A scientific theory required to be falsifiable and required to follow the Scientific Method. And as mentioned above, it required to undergo the scrutiny in Peer Review.

Second, your reply here, seemed to imply that evidences and experiments are not the same.

The test results from experiments are evidences, that would verify or refute a hypothesis or a theory in a controlled environment like a laboratory.

An uncontrolled environment are found in the fields, where researchers don’t have any control what they may find, for examples:
  1. Edwin Hubble discovery there other galaxies other than the Milky Way in 1919, because he used a telescope of much larger aperture than telescopes constructed in previous centuries. It is due to this discovery that astronomy discovered the universe was much larger than the Milky Way.
  2. Archaeologists are able to date pottery (and other objects) of different levels of settlement in ancient Jericho.
  3. Charles Darwin discovered of speciation on the group of islands of Galapagos, because of separation by waters and different environments they were living at (eg different terrains, different humidity, different food sources available on each islands, etc).
Evidences found, whether it be in the lab experiments or out in the fields, they are all related to whether scientists have followed the protocol of scientific method.

Third. Even when scientific theory has satisfy the requirements of falsification, scientific method and peer review, scientists can continue to design experiments and tests in the lab, because in some fields of science, like people working on pathology and pharmaceutical are required to perform tests on viruses and illness and perform test on proposed and prospective medicines, first on animals, then human testing. Viruses can change, mutate into different strains that make them resistant to the past or current vaccines, so new vaccine must be designed and made to fight mutated viral diseases.

Lastly, metaphysics philosophers are not in the business of finding evidences or performing experiments. You don’t seem able to grasp that.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Let me guess: The History Channel? :)
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.

I am trying to start anew topic away from the topic already covered in Ancient Reality, and I would appreciate it if cladking didn’t move his topic here.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
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.
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.

Science is also in the business of answering the WHAT questions too.

Like you said earlier, metaphysics isn’t science, it is a philosophy.

The philosophers aren’t in the business of discovering evidences or testing them in the lab.

Science do, and that’s what make science different to metaphysics and other philosophies.

Cladking definitely don’t understand that.
 
Top