Perhaps universeness will tell us what he meant, but I stand behind what I wrote. — Clarky

Then explain it to me. I do not think there are many scientists who think they are doing metaphysics.

So why combine them? Is that not like saying metadata has nothing to do with data or metacognition has nothing to do with cognition? I think the scientific method employed by physics is fundamental as the most reliable way of pursuing new knowledge and testing its validity. — universeness

The scientific method employed by physics is perhaps the most reliable way of pursuing new knowledge of the natural world, but I would not call it fundamental. It rests on the questions that are considered meaningful. Your post for instance contains hidden assumptions, for instance you equate knowledge with the physical world. However when I want to enlarge my legal knowledge, physics does not bring me much. I have nothing against physics, but it rests on what one might call an economy of truth, a field of assumptions about what is worth knowing, what 'knowledge' is like and how knowledge should be tested. Those assumptions are metaphysical.

The scientific method employed by physics is perhaps the most reliable way of pursuing new knowledge of the natural world, but I would not call it fundamental. It rests on the question than are considered meaningful. Your post for instance contains hidden assumptions, for instance you equate knowledge with the physical world. However when I want to enlarge my legal knowledge, physics does not bring me much. I have nothing against physics, but it rests on what one might call an economy of truth, a field of assumptions about what is worth knowing, what 'knowledge' is like and how knowledge should be tested. Those assumptions are metaphysical. — Tobias

Science describes physicality, the movement of particles. It is descriptive. It does not say why or if those movements are meaningful.

Then explain it to me. I do not think there are many scientists who think they are doing metaphysics. — Jackson

A recipe tells you how to cook something, it doesn't cook anything itself.

A recipe tells you how to cook something, it doesn't cook anything itself. — Clarky

Got it. Now explain what that has to do with the relation of science to metaphysics.

Science describes physicality, the movement of particles. It is descriptive. It does not say why or if those movements are meaningful. — Jackson

No it does not, but it does not describe just willy-nilly. It is guided by questions that are considered to be important questions, that is the point. That is why it is not fundamental.

Got it. Now explain what that has to do with the relation of science to metaphysics. — Jackson

A poet does not explain his poetry.

No it does not, but it does not describe just willy-nilly — Tobias

Of course.

A poet does not explain his poetry. — Clarky

Okay, guess we're done.

Okay, guess we're done. — Jackson

The scientific method isn't science, it's metaphysics. — Clarky

I've seen other prominent posters point out the fact that the scientific method is a methodology not an ontology but is often mistaken for the latter. I accept this as an important point that tidies up an area of confusion.

I've seen other prominent posters point out the fact that the scientific method is a methodology not an ontology but is often mistaken for the latter. I accept this as an important point that clears up an area of confusion. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The scientific method is epistemology. Epistemology is often included within metaphysics. I believe that's appropriate.

Keeping in mind that Aristotle called it "metaphysics" because it came after physics in his publications, not because it was beyond physics in subject matter or an addition to physics. I tend to see it as the framework for knowledge and understanding, which I guess is what you mean by "beyond" in this context. — Clarky

I don’t know if this is relevant, but the Aristotelian term ‘physis’ is better translated as nature than as physics. It is true that physics and the natural seem synonymous for the modern era of science , but Aristotle’s conception of nature was quite different in many respects from what we think of today as physics. I can also imagine a future notion of the natural that departs from the view of the natural that today’s physics implies. There are already an number of strands of thinking in philosophy and the cognitive sciences ( Peirceian semiotics, phenomenology, enactivism) that have redefined the natural in a way that that goes beyond the grounding of nature that physics offers.

I don’t know if this is relevant, but the Aristotelian term ‘physis’ is better translated as nature than as physics. It is true that physics and the natural seem synonymous for the modern era of science , but Aristotle’s conception of nature was quite different in many respects from what we think of today as physics. — Joshs

Good point. Nature for Aristotle was a system of production, of doing something. Not just physical particles moving.

Epistemology is often included within metaphysics. — Clarky

My understanding is that epistemology is about the nature of knowledge and metaphysics is about the nature of reality. The scientific method as methodology is a useful framework that may not necessarily have a metaphysical implication. Though certaintly an epistemological.

The scientific method is epistemology. Epistemology is often included within metaphysics. I believe that's appropriate. — Clarky

Well, I side here with the people that make a distinction. Methodology, is the way one gets results i.e. the way one goes about investigating. Epistemology concerns the question what we may know and what the appropriate standards for knowledge are. It is quibbling, but I think there is a point to it. The scientific method is predicated on an epistemology, namely that by empirical demonstration one may come to knowledge. This is contrary to for instance the scholastic method that tells us that one comes to knowledge by referring to credible sources of knowledge, the revered scholars or religious leaders.

I think different methodologies may rest on the same epistemology, for instance qualitative and quantitative methodologies might both rest on an empiricist epistemology. I also wonder if 'the scientific method' as is often mentioned on this forum actually exists as such. It seems to me to be a cluster of research methodologies, based on empiricist empistemology and perhaps heeding Popper's methodological constraints.

Epistemology is usually classified as a sub branch of metaphysics. Metaphysics includes the nature of reality, ontology and the nature of knowledge, epistemology.

There are already an number of strands of thinking in philosophy and the cognitive sciences ( Peirceian semiotics, phenomenology, enactivism) that have redefined the natural in a way that that goes beyond the grounding of nature that physics offers. — Joshs

This makes sense to me.

You may be right. I'm no expert. But I see plenty of room to draw a line between epistemology and metaphysics, as do others.

https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/the-crucial-difference-between-metaphysics-and-epistemology-7943158aba52

https://study.com/academy/lesson/epistemology-and-the-true-vs-metaphysics-and-the-real.html

http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-epistemology-and-metaphysics/


I don't see anything about epistemology in the SEP article on metaphysics.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/


Maybe you can point me in the right direction.

My understanding is that epistemology is about the nature of knowledge and metaphysics is about the nature of reality. The scientific method as methodology is a useful framework that may not necessarily have a metaphysical implication. Though certaintly an epistemological. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It is common to include epistemology as part of metaphysics. It is also common to consider them separate. I don't think it make sense to talk about them separately. How can I talk about the nature of what exists without talking about how I know it? If there's any confusion in my posts, substitute "metaphysics and epistemology" for "metaphysics."

Common to mistakenly include epistemology within metaphysics, it seems.

From the wiki on metaphysics.

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.



If you have a counter-source, I'm interested.

Will do. :cool:

I would think any methodology would have some ontological assumptions built into it. Why it would work. Why our memory of it having worked is correct and not illusions. That things can be known. Science also seems like a few methodologies. The experiment and the model creating, not that these are fully separate. I think there are also ontological assumptions in the latter.

I would not use "reliable" as a test for truth — Jackson

I cant see a lot of value in unreliable truths.It's true that the Earth orbits the Sun. If such truths are not reliable then I would think that science is not so useful.

I cant see a lot of value in unreliable truths. — universeness

Practical use is not the same as being true.

I don't see that any of the posts you've quoted are necessarily inconsistent with each other — Clarky

Well, you agreed with 'overburdened,' which was the extent I was suggesting. The quotes just demonstrated a ' wideness of range,' which I thought was enough for illustration purposes.
I agree with your 'colouring inside the lines, but I think the lines are too far apart as I think there are many who will connect the metaphysical with the supernatural and others who restrict it to the natural.

I tend to see it as the framework for knowledge and understanding, which I guess is what you mean by "beyond" in this context. — Clarky

Yes, I also think @Wayfarer described it well with:

Meta-physics is reflection on what it means, or what must be the case for it to have the meaning it does, and so on. So for example in current physics, the metaphysical debates revolve around the meaning of quantum physics - what the quanitifiable observations and predictive theories mean about the larger reality, what is implied by the theory. — Wayfarer

As for the supernatural, that's always given me pause when the subject is metaphysics — Clarky

So does this sentence not confirm that in your opinion, many people do connect the two terms supernatural and metaphysical. Do you pause because you seek to disconnect them or do you pause because the they are in fact traditionally connected.

One of the most important ideas for Collingwood, one that I strongly endorse, is that metaphysical principles are not true or false. — Clarky

Can you give me an example of a metaphysical principle which is neither true or false?
Do you mean a principle that may be true under certain circumstances and false under other circumstances or a principle that might be a bit of both under certain conditions? or is he suggesting that all metaphysical principles are paradoxical?

That works fine for talking about God or gods in general — Clarky

Do you think the god posit is a metaphysical concept?

When I performed a the google search 'Is god a metaphysical concept,' I got a great many interesting hits, including such as:

Process theology is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947).

For me, this is further evidence for how much the term is overburdened and perhaps it should be tightened. If someone suggests that the human 'soul' is a metaphysical concept, could I insist that is an invalid use of the word?

Common to mistakenly include epistemology within metaphysics, it seems. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Oxford English Dictionary; Metaphysics - The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Metaphysics - A division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology.

Oxford English Dictionary; Metaphysics - The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Metaphysics - A division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology. — Clarky

Perhaps. For philosophers, they are distinct categories.

If you have a counter-source, I'm interested. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Hmmm, I always learned it that way and accepted it as a given it seems. I must have gotten it from somewhere because I was quite certain, but well pssible you are right. I thought they were the two branches of metaphysics. Maybe it is Collingwood actually. It does not make much of a difference to me though. Let's treat them as separate then...

For philosophers, they are distinct categories. — Jackson

I'm thinking of starting a thread to examine my belief that they are inseparable. Really the same thing.