Science definition

[krash661]

meta means beyond,

metaphysics means beyond physics, what ever that means.

from what i gathered it appears to be a mixture of spirituality and physics,
or spirituality/scientology and physics.

but i'm not 100% sure.

[PeterJ]

I dare say I shall regret this, but could you give an example of one of those ludicrous views? And if you could, would you?

 

Ha ha. Yes, I can understand your nervousness.

 

Francis Bradley cites Materialism and Theism as good examples of views that do not survive in metaphysics. They would be my two first choices as well.

[cladking]

Metaphysics is the basis used to gain knowledge.

 

The problem with modern science is not theory. For the main part theory is reasonably well supported across the board. The problem is where the rubber meets the road; the application of science to the concrete world. No, not the isolation of basic principles that we call "technology" or invention but the application of known science to real world concerns. This is critical not only in planning but also in developement of processes that feed, house, and hydrate people; the processes like road design and building that serve human needs. The problem is that we blunder into the future always sure we know everything despite our vast ignorance. We rarely consider allthe consequences and show no concern for ultimate costs. We have an economy founded on waste and damage it by poor and incorrect planning.

 

Not only is the application of science to the real world poor but applied science from the perspective of philosophy is behind the times.

[swansont]

Ha ha. Yes, I can understand your nervousness.

 

Francis Bradley cites Materialism and Theism as good examples of views that do not survive in metaphysics. They would be my two first choices as well.

And these are science in what way? You specifically mentioned physicists — what physics views are ludicrous due to not understanding metaphysics?

[Ophiolite]

@PeterJ: I echo swansont's query. I half expected you to assert that, for example, general relativity was clear nonsense when examined fom a metaphysical aspect. Instead you introduce materialism (nothing to do with science, except for usurping and misunderstanding some of science's underpinnings) and theism (again, not just divorced from science, but never really married). I'm confused.

[PeterJ]

Ah yes. I see your point. Many scientists endorse materialism and theism, but they're not doing science when they do so. Fair point. But then, my criticism was not aimed at science (I see no reason to criticise science) but at scientists who promote meta-scientific views. .

 

How about Guth and Stenger with ttheir theories of ex nihilo creation? Or, how about the idea that physics can construct a fundamental theory?

 

Scientific consciousness studies is fertile ground. Here materialism is common, and the 'hard' problem is actually defined by Chalmers as the problem of explaining how consciousness arises from matter. Hardly surprising that defined as such it is intractable.

 

But yes, I agree with your objection. Science does not endorse any failed metaphysical views. It's just that this seems to be regularly forgotten by individual scientists. ,

 

.