One of the battles of science against medieval scholasticism was the elimination of final causes (purpose) in the study of nature. — David Mo

Yes. But post-20th-century scientists --- since the advent of Quantum Theory --- are losing that battle. We discuss some of the Teleological implications of modern science in the various Teleology threads on this forum. :cool:

Final Causes : "But I was surprised to read that biologists especially (including Darwin himself) have begun to tackle even Teleology, the Fourth Cause. Is this appropriate in Modern Science?"
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1896/does-science-reject-aristotles-final-cause

Systems Theory : https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Goal_Structure_(Teleological_Behavior)

Aristotle did make a distinction between a> empirical Induction and b> rational Deduction, which roughly parallel the methods of a> Science and b> Philosophy. Are you saying that Philosophy is mere opinion, hence of no value to science? — Gnomon

You're talking about argument types, not science types.
On the other hand, the author of the Stanford encyclopedia article (R. Smith) warns that the concept of "syllogism" and "epogee" do not exactly coincide with deduction and induction in the modern sense.
Finally, Moreau warns that, contrary to what Smith says, the inductive procedure is insufficient to scientifically demonstrate the first principles (Analytica priora, II, 23, 68 b 13-29). The induction guides knowledge. Only rational demonstration shows the necessity and causality.

The separation of science and philosophy does not belong to Aristotle. According to him, philosophy is the way to higher knowledge, or superior science. Not opinion, in any case.

Aristotle called philosophy zetoumene episteme, the sought-after science. The formula is ambiguous, and now we understand why: because we do not know whether it alludes to the first or second of the two dimensions of philosophy. — Xabier Zubiri

Are you asking my opinion or Aristotle's?

They are now called "axioms". — Gnomon

Currently, the term axiom is reserved for the formal sciences, mathematics and logic. But the Aristotelian first principles covered the physical sciences.

I'm not sure which "interpretation" you are referring to. A> That Science has rid itself of the "pernicious influence" of Philosophy, or B> That "Analysis" is superior to "Synthesis"? — Gnomon

The two options you propose do not relate to my question.
I was asking you why you consider the theories that interpret science to be metaphysical. For example, the Copenhagen school's interpretation of quantum mechanics versus Einstein's. Do you see any difference between metaphysics and philosophy of science? I think there's a difference.

But post-20th-century scientists --- since the advent of Quantum Theory --- are losing that battle. — Gnomon

I don't know what quantum mechanics has to do with final causes. I don't know of any studies about the purposes of elementary particles.

But I was surprised to read that biologists especially (including Darwin himself) have begun to tackle even Teleology, the Fourth Cause. Is this appropriate in Modern Science? — Gnomon

I suppose in biology and anthropology it is impossible to work without some teleological explanations. But they are always abandoned when they can be explained in terms of efficient causes. The role of final causes in Darwinism seems to me to be secondary, if it exists at all. Its explanatory principles are based on mechanisms of response to the environment. It was Lamarck who was the finalist. There are not many Lamarckian biologists today.

I don't know what quantum mechanics has to do with final causes. I don't know of any studies about the purposes of elementary particles. — David Mo

There seems to be retrocausation in qm. Not that there's much consensus about this. This is not the same as final cause, since this latter implies purpose, but it is almost as if the past must now conform to the future.

I have not understood what you mean by 'Iron age', tosh — David Mo

that was a response about remark made by another poster, that Aristotle was still in thrall to 'iron age ideas'. But I agree with your description of Aristotle's works.

Regards your remarks on teleology, have a glance at the Wiki entry on teleonomy.

Biologist John Haldane [in the 1930s] can be found remarking, ‘Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.’ Today the mistress has become a lawfully wedded wife. Biologists no longer feel obligated to apologize for their use of teleological language; they flaunt it. The only concession which they make to its disreputable past is to rename it ‘teleonomy’.

There seems to be retrocausation in qm. — Coben

Can you give me a reference? Thank you.

Here's a range of types of references to retrocausality. Note: I am not presenting these as proof, but the door is certainly not closed on it and there are indications it might be possible. Certainly qm presents a different picture than classical physics would. How this will be resolved, I do not know.
https://futurism.com/physicists-may-have-discovered-one-of-the-missing-pieces-of-quantum-theory
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality#Quantum_physics
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.09688.pdf

And as an on-topic aside, the possibility of retrocausality is an issue I would put in metaphysics and since it is discussed and experimented around in physics, it seems to me that science does weigh in on metaphysical issues. Physics deals, for example, with ontology. It tries to get answers to fundamental issues that do fall under metaphysics' baliwick.

these as proof, but the door is certainly not closed — Coben

Thanks for the links.

As far as we can see, retrocausation is a hypothesis maintained by some isolated scientists -and pseudo-scientists- that is neither unitary nor admitted by the immense majority of scientists. Some of the formulations that were made in the past by respectable scientists (Feynman) have been refuted.

No conclusions of any kind can be drawn on such a poor basis. If we admit that possibility we would have to admit the action of consciousness on matter, the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin or telepathy, to cite some of the absurdities that have been defended as hypotheses by scientists.

There is not, to my knowledge, a generally agreed upon interpretation of quantum theory that recovers the whole theory and exploits this idea. It is more of an idea for an interpretation at the moment, so I think that other physicists are rightly skeptical, and the onus is on us to flesh out the idea. — Matthew S. Leifer

Note that this skeptical comment comes from a proponent of the theory.

Metaphysics anticipates the general structures of reality by formulating the way our knowing operates. Science actually works out the explanation of the data by a never-ending process of research. — Bernard Lonergan — Wayfarer

Nice Lonergan quote! Mathematics is the bridge between phenomenal experience and metaphysical ideas; this is because metaphysics is impossible without distinctness or distinction, and distinction is nothing but number.

Interesting way of putting it. I'd like to find a Lonergan reader, but it seems there are none such. I found that quote in this article.

I'd like to find a Lonergan reader, but it seems there are none such. — Wayfarer

You might find something here:
https://library.memoryoftheworld.org/#/search/authors/bernard%20lonergan

or here:
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=bernard+lonergan&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def

:ok: