I don’t understand why that would be a problem. — T Clark

If Science is based on the presuppositions which can be either true or false, then it is unable to provide useful knowledge. It then relegates to superstition or guess work, hence it needs help of Metaphysics? - hence the reason Kant wrote CPR.

Plus the title of the OP "absolute" sounds not what it says, if the founding presuppositions are "not absolute".

If Science is based on the presuppositions which can be either true or false, then it is unable to provide useful knowledge. It then relegates to superstition or guess work, hence it needs help of Metaphysics? - hence the reason Kant wrote CPR. — Corvus

Your understanding of metaphysics is different from mine.

Your understanding of metaphysics is different of mine. — T Clark

That is interesting. What is my understanding of Metaphysics? And what is yours?

That is interesting. What is my understanding of Metaphysics? And what is yours? — Corvus

That's a very long story which I have discussed in many threads in the past. I don't want to go into it in detail here, but here's a brief summary from a previous thread:

R.G. Collingwood wrote that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions. Absolute presuppositions are the unspoken, perhaps unconscious, assumptions that underpin how we understand reality. Collingwood wrote that absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false, — T Clark

R.G. Collingwood wrote that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions. Absolute presuppositions are the unspoken, perhaps unconscious, assumptions that underpin how we understand reality. Collingwood wrote that absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false, — T Clark

I think I agree with Colingwood on his concept of Metaphysics. Then there emerges a question. Is Metaphysics part of Science? Or Is Science a part of Metaphysics?