An infinite series of finite causes.

[mattbballman31]

Do you REALLY think that working scientists have doubts as to what qualifies as scientific or not? I'm pretty sure they don’t.

Tass, I have worked around experimental and theoretical physicists since my mid-twenties. Determining what counts as science or not is just not something that comes up! They don't need to KNOW WHAT IT IS (or what COUNTS as science) in order to undertake particular scientific practices. That's just a fact. BUT, once morons LIKE YOU want to leave the lab and PRONOUNCE upon an issue that LIES OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF PRACTICING SCIENCE, and pontificate about what distinguishes science from pseudo-science, they are pronouncing on a topic whose subject-matter LIES OUTSIDE pure, practicing science. These scientists, and YOU, ARE NOT QUALIFIED to pronounce upon what science is, or what disciplines OUSIDE of science are, and what the methodologies are able to show. The fact that you DON'T KNOW THIS and think it's a simple black-and-white issue DEMONSTRATES that you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

What do you do for a living? Are you a practicing physicist? Are you a philosopher? This is my JOB, Tass. I've done this for close to 20 years. And I'm telling you: you don't know what you're talking about!

Only pseudo-scientists such as creation-scientists care about blurring the distinction between real science and pseudoscience in order to teach their myths in schools and pursue their own religious agenda e.g. re climate change.

It's not about blurring the distinction; it's about acknowledging that there are ZERO necessary and sufficient conditions for what counts as a scientific methodology, because EVERY SINGLE characteristic you cite, there is a SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE that DOES NOT have that characteristic. You come off here as a partisan hack. I haven't mentioned ANYTHING about what to teach in school or climate change. You brought this into the discussion FROM NOWHERE! This is your true colors. You have a chip on your shoulder, and so you are not qualified to be an OBJECTIVE, disinterested spokesman for your point of view.

Who cares “WHAT “OTHER METHODOLOGIES 'show', or 'verify', or 'demonstrate' IN THEIR OWN WAY, RELATIVE TO THEIR OWN METHODOLOGY, within the scope of the particular discipline?” LOL. None of them can be shown to be true in practical terms, only bona-fide science can put a man on the moon.

Scientists care, retard! This strict 'showing' and 'verification' and 'demonstration' as practiced in CERTAIN DOMAINS of science ARE NOT the only methodologies deployed by scientists, and these OTHER methodologies THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH are USED BY SCIENTISTS and metaphysicians alike. I demonstrated this to you, and you ignore it. You either have to accept these other methodologies, and thereby accept these other methodologies into the framework of science, OR reject them using THE SAME METHODOLOGIES that philosophers use to substantiate their theses. You CANNOT escape this dilemma, so matter how cocksure your idiotic disposition allows you pontificate.

Shown by whom?

Pick up any book on the history of science or the philosophy of science! In the 50's, 60's, and 70's, there was a HUGE debate regarding falsification between Kuhn (1970), Popper (1959, 1970), and Lakatos (1970). Popper originally formulated the theory of falsification, as an empiricist, to deal with the problem of induction, as the debate was laid out by Carnap (1950) and Reichenback (1971). Popper took the problem to be unsolvable, even if Popper disagreed with Kuhn that science was a rational enterprise. What ended up happening is that Popper's falsification, though a normative undertaking, and though a rational alternative to pure inductivism, is that Kuhn's critique (even if you disagree with the larger picture of his non-rational, non-realism) was that the majority of scientists in the history of science DO NOT discard theories in the face of falsifying evidence. It's ACCEPTED by almost all scientists today, and the history of science testifies to the fact that, theories NEVER GO AWAY in the face of falsifying evidence; theories ACCUMULATE ANOMALIES, more and more falsifying data accumulates that COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS a theory that IS NOT discarded. This is what motivated Kuhn's non-rational, non-realism: there is no set of necessary and sufficient conditions that an accumulation of anomalies has to satisfy in order for practicing scientists to be rationally compelled to discard a theory in the face of crisis, triggering a paradigm-shift.

Popper has been shown to overly consider the epistemology of science to the exclusion of the history of science; Kuhn has been shown to overly consider the history of science to the exclusion of the epistemology of science. The SOLUTION was Lakatos's idea of RESEARCH PROGRAMS which COMBINES both. IRONICALLY, Popper came to see that Lakatos' notion of research programs actually provided the conditions under which the idea of falsification ITSELF (as a necessary and jointly sufficient condition for scientific practice) was itself falsified! I would go into more, but you'll just accuse me of writing too much. But that's the nuts and bolts of it. The idea is that falsification ends up only being necessary or sufficient RELATIVE TO particular scientific endeavors, experiments, and practice; but it cannot be UNIVERSALIZED to encompass ALL such endeavors, experiments, and practices. It suffers from a wholesale rejection of positive confirmation, accepted as appropriate by most scientists. Further, falsifiability is problematic in light of auxiliary hypotheses and human choice, which is Lakatos' point. And, there are some statements that are perfectly empirical yet impossible to demonstrate to be false.

Nonsense! What “new truths” did Aristotle generate from his assumed premises that reality consisted of just four elements...or that the cosmos consisted of “celestial spheres? None! Because his assumed premises were wrong...and it took science to show that they were wrong.

Dude, seriously. What is your fixation with Aristotle? I addressed Aristotle in the other post I wrote that you didn't read. And why won't you answer my questions regarding the difference between the methodology of Aristotle and the methodologies of practicing scientists working to day that formulate their universal generalizations IN THE SAME WAY that Aristotle had done in the context of the models of explanation I've been pointing out to you over and over again? 20th and 21st century metaphysics have soared WAY BEYOND Aristotle! Aristotle's methodology was, by and large, scientific, and, again, TO SAY OTHERWISE, is to presuppose that you've solved the demarcation problem. Tens of thousands of scientists HAVE BEEN WRONG in the process of scientific theorizing and hypothesizing.

You do know that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics CANNOT go together, right? One or the other has to go. Is there going to be a future Tassman, a thousand years from now, that's going to denounce Einstein as a pseudo-scientist because he believed in this mythical space-time curvature to explain gravity? THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE! I don't know how it's going to go down. No one does. But BOTH theories CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE. Science advances. Aristotle's achievements were spectacular using what he had, but Aristotle would have been thrilled to be corrected by later advances by Kepler, Newton, and so on.

And to argue that because Aristotle's a priori reasoning was wrong, and has since been corrected by science, that therefore ALL a priori premises utilized by 21st century metaphysicians is an inference that is so disgustingly sweeping that it would be LITERALLY laughed at in the conferences I attend.

No scientific theory can be proven, it can only be disproven.

This, once again, betrays your absolute naiveté. And the dogmatism with which you say crap like this testifies to your inexperience and credulousness. This just echoes your universalizing impulse to foist falsification on all contexts in every kind of scientific practice, which IS NOT adhered to by ANY philosopher of science that I've read, and no philosopher of science or scientist that I HAVE EVER WORKED WITH. You are out of your depth.

Neither of Einstein’s theories of Relativity has been disproven in over a century of rigorous testing. So there is good reason to consider them true and they have had important consequences in modern science.

Right. It's amazing. That's not what I asked you. Stop evading the issue. I'm asking what his ASSUMPTIONS are for his SPECIAL theory of relativity. Try to focus . . . And do me a favor. Don't give me a darn link. I KNOW THIS STUFF. This is my career, you stupid dipstick.

I know, it's for the untold masses hanging on your every word.

Considering the fact that you probably value the masses over the individual, I'd see why you'd say this. But if there's just a handful of SOULS that aren't swayed to believe your bullcrap, I will have done what I've wanted.

[Tassman]

Tass, I have worked around experimental and theoretical physicists since my mid-twenties. Determining what counts as science or not is just not something that comes up! They don't need to KNOW WHAT IT IS (or what COUNTS as science) in order to undertake particular scientific practices. That's just a fact

The application of the scientific method is what counts as science dummy.

BUT, once morons LIKE YOU want to leave the lab and PRONOUNCE upon an issue that LIES OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF PRACTICING SCIENCE, and pontificate about what distinguishes science from pseudo-science, they are pronouncing on a topic whose subject-matter LIES OUTSIDE pure, practicing science. These scientists, and YOU, ARE NOT QUALIFIED to pronounce upon what science is, or what disciplines OUSIDE of science are, and what the methodologies are able to show. The fact that you DON'T KNOW THIS and think it's a simple black-and-white issue DEMONSTRATES that you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Nothing to do with the systematic study of the physical or material universe is outside the purview of science.

It's not about blurring the distinction; it's about acknowledging that there are ZERO necessary and sufficient conditions for what counts as a scientific methodology, because EVERY SINGLE characteristic you cite, there is a SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE that DOES NOT have that characteristic. You come off here as a partisan hack. I haven't mentioned ANYTHING about what to teach in school or climate change. You brought this into the discussion FROM NOWHERE! This is your true colors. You have a chip on your shoulder, and so you are not qualified to be an OBJECTIVE, disinterested spokesman for your point of view.

Nothing of substance here!

Scientists care, retard! This strict 'showing' and 'verification' and 'demonstration' as practiced in CERTAIN DOMAINS of science ARE NOT the only methodologies deployed by scientists, and these OTHER methodologies THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH are USED BY SCIENTISTS and metaphysicians alike. I demonstrated this to you, and you ignore it. You either have to accept these other methodologies, and thereby accept these other methodologies into the framework of science, OR reject them using THE SAME METHODOLOGIES that philosophers use to substantiate their theses. You CANNOT escape this dilemma, so matter how cocksure your idiotic disposition allows you pontificate.

What “certain domains of science” are you referring to?

Pick up any book on the history of science or the philosophy of science! In the 50's, 60's, and 70's, there was a HUGE debate regarding falsification between Kuhn (1970), Popper (1959, 1970), and Lakatos (1970). Popper originally formulated the theory of falsification, as an empiricist, to deal with the problem of induction, as the debate was laid out by Carnap (1950) and Reichenback (1971). Popper took the problem to be unsolvable, even if Popper disagreed with Kuhn that science was a rational enterprise. What ended up happening is that Popper's falsification, though a normative undertaking, and though a rational alternative to pure inductivism, is that Kuhn's critique (even if you disagree with the larger picture of his non-rational, non-realism) was that the majority of scientists in the history of science DO NOT discard theories in the face of falsifying evidence. It's ACCEPTED by almost all scientists today, and the history of science testifies to the fact that, theories NEVER GO AWAY in the face of falsifying evidence; theories ACCUMULATE ANOMALIES, more and more falsifying data accumulates that COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS a theory that IS NOT discarded. This is what motivated Kuhn's non-rational, non-realism: there is no set of necessary and sufficient conditions that an accumulation of anomalies has to satisfy in order for practicing scientists to be rationally compelled to discard a theory in the face of crisis, triggering a paradigm-shift.

Popper has been shown to overly consider the epistemology of science to the exclusion of the history of science; Kuhn has been shown to overly consider the history of science to the exclusion of the epistemology of science. The SOLUTION was Lakatos's idea of RESEARCH PROGRAMS which COMBINES both. IRONICALLY, Popper came to see that Lakatos' notion of research programs actually provided the conditions under which the idea of falsification ITSELF (as a necessary and jointly sufficient condition for scientific practice) was itself falsified! I would go into more, but you'll just accuse me of writing too much. But that's the nuts and bolts of it. The idea is that falsification ends up only being necessary or sufficient RELATIVE TO particular scientific endeavors, experiments, and practice; but it cannot be UNIVERSALIZED to encompass ALL such endeavors, experiments, and practices. It suffers from a wholesale rejection of positive confirmation, accepted as appropriate by most scientists. Further, falsifiability is problematic in light of auxiliary hypotheses and human choice, which is Lakatos' point. And, there are some statements that are perfectly empirical yet impossible to demonstrate to be false.

What a load of pretentious crap. Falsifiability is the capacity for a scientific hypothesis to be proven wrong. That capacity is an essential component of the scientific method and hypothesis testing. In a scientific context, falsifiability is synonymous with testability.

Dude, seriously. What is your fixation with Aristotle? I addressed Aristotle in the other post I wrote that you didn't read. And why won't you answer my questions regarding the difference between the methodology of Aristotle and the methodologies of practicing scientists working to day that formulate their universal generalizations IN THE SAME WAY that Aristotle had done in the context of the models of explanation I've been pointing out to you over and over again? 20th and 21st century metaphysics have soared WAY BEYOND Aristotle! Aristotle's methodology was, by and large, scientific, and, again, TO SAY OTHERWISE, is to presuppose that you've solved the demarcation problem. Tens of thousands of scientists HAVE BEEN WRONG in the process of scientific theorizing and hypothesizing.

You do know that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics CANNOT go together, right? One or the other has to go. Is there going to be a future Tassman, a thousand years from now, that's going to denounce Einstein as a pseudo-scientist because he believed in this mythical space-time curvature to explain gravity? THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE! I don't know how it's going to go down. No one does. But BOTH theories CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE. Science advances.

What’s your point? Yes, it’s currently a problem. The reason is because General Relativity breaks down at the Planck length right where Quantum Mechanics comes into play so science has to find a physics that rolls them into one package - Quantum gravity. But it’s a scientific problem and it’s a problem science will ultimately resolve. It is not a metaphysical problem and metaphysics will never resole it because it hasn’t the mechanism to resolve it.

Aristotle's achievements were spectacular using what he had, but Aristotle would have been thrilled to be corrected by later advances by Kepler, Newton, and so on.

And to argue that because Aristotle's a priori reasoning was wrong, and has since been corrected by science, that therefore ALL a priori premises utilized by 21st century metaphysicians is an inference that is so disgustingly sweeping that it would be LITERALLY laughed at in the conferences I attend.

Yes Aristotle's achievements were spectacular “using what he had”. What he DIDN’T have were the advantages of modern scientific knowledge upon which to base his premises and which subsequently proved his metaphysical arguments to be wrong...as will be the case with any metaphysical argument that conflicts with verified scientific facts.

This, once again, betrays your absolute naiveté. And the dogmatism with which you say crap like this testifies to your inexperience and credulousness. This just echoes your universalizing impulse to foist falsification on all contexts in every kind of scientific practice, which IS NOT adhered to by ANY philosopher of science that I've read, and no philosopher of science or scientist that I HAVE EVER WORKED WITH. You are out of your depth.

The philosophy of science is the study, from a philosophical perspective, of the elements of scientific inquiry. It has nothing to do with its practical application.

Right. It's amazing. That's not what I asked you. Stop evading the issue. I'm asking what his ASSUMPTIONS are for his SPECIAL theory of relativity. Try to focus . . . And do me a favor. Don't give me a darn link. I KNOW THIS STUFF. This is my career, you stupid dipstick.

It seems that you don't "know this stuff". Relativity has transformed theoretical physics and astronomy during the 20th century. How’s your PhD coming on?

Considering the fact that you probably value the masses over the individual, I'd see why you'd say this. But if there's just a handful of SOULS that aren't swayed to believe your bullcrap, I will have done what I've wanted.

What are your assumptions for the existence of “SOULS”?

[mattbballman31]

The application of the scientific method is what counts as science dummy.

There is no THE scientific method, dummy. There are MANY scientific methods, used in all kinds of circumstances, at entirely different stages of inquiry. Determining what these METHODS might be is a second-order question ABOUT science, and therefore constitutes the deployment of non-scientific methodologies in determining what they are. There are ALL KINDS of practices and issues used in MANY contexts to which 'a scientific method' may be applied. And once these practices and issues are made clear, such scientific methods are construed so widely that they encompass many of the non-scientific methodologies practiced by metaphysics and philosophy. There's Bacon's inductivism, Hempel's hypothetico-deductive method, abduction, inference to the best explanation, the giving of criteria to determine what distinguishes anomalous crisis and anomalies as only threatening auxiliary hypotheses, the giving of criteria on how to adjudicate internal and external conceptual problems, the giving of criteria for what constitutes a justified universal or statistical generalization in covering-law models of explanation, the giving of criteria for what consists of compositions/structural, historical, functional, transitional, and intentional explanations, the methods deployed in the context of controlled scientific experiments, the methods deployed in the contexts of falsification and justificationism/confirmation, the methods involved in the rationality of pursuing theories for which evidence is still forthcoming, the methods involved in the rationality of accepting theories for which evidence has been forthcoming, the methods deployed in the application of epistemic virtues when adjudicating competing theories that are empirically equivalent, the methods deployed relative to varying conceptions of laws and theories, the methods deployed for justifying extrinsic and intrinsic goals of science, and on and on and on.

And it, of course, misses the point anyway. The demarcation problem has absolutely nothing to do with just spitting out that it's the scientific method. Are you really so stupid as to think that an answer as simple as this has been missed by some of the most brilliant thinkers of the last 300 years only to be solved by an Internet hack? There's your sign . . . The demarcation problem centers on the nature of the method, not the presence of the method, dummy. The issue is that once you start specifying what you mean by the nature of the method, the definitions become so malleable that they begin to overlap with the same exact methodologies used in non-scientific disciplines.

Nothing to do with the systematic study of the physical or material universe is outside the purview of science.

I have no idea how this even remotely interacts with my point.

Nothing of substance here!

Truly bizarre and evasive and idiotic and ignorant.

What “certain domains of science” are you referring to?

Oh, boy. You think the only kind of scientist is some dude in a lab-coat behind some chemical-filled beakers? You got the physical science (physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, metallurgy), the biological sciences (zoology, botany, genetics, paleontology, molecular biology, physiology), and the psychological sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, perhaps economics).

What a load of pretentious crap. Falsifiability is the capacity for a scientific hypothesis to be proven wrong. That capacity is an essential component of the scientific method and hypothesis testing. In a scientific context, falsifiability is synonymous with testability.

Truly bizarre and evasive and idiotic and ignorant. I gave you a free lesson in the history of science, which I can back up with numerous citations from legitimate scholarly sources, and you ignore it. I'd expect nothing less. It most certainly IS NOT an essential component of scientific METHODS, as some of these methods deploy the sufficiency of justificationism and confirmation, as for example with methods of accepting the observational effects of unobservable entities.

What’s your point? Yes, it’s currently a problem. The reason is because General Relativity breaks down at the Planck length right where Quantum Mechanics comes into play so science has to find a physics that rolls them into one package - Quantum gravity. But it’s a scientific problem and it’s a problem science will ultimately resolve. It is not a metaphysical problem and metaphysics will never resole it because it hasn’t the mechanism to resolve it.

My point, dipstick, is that IF Quantum Gravity is confirmed or accepted, THEN the major ontological commitments of General Relativity (AS WE KNOW IT) will be completely REVAMPED, IN THE SAME WAY that Newton's theories of gravity were. They'll have predictive ability, but the theory itself will have been REPLACED, not refined. Quantum Gravity will be a completely NEW way to understand the nature, behavior, and processes of gravity. This idea of "ROLLING THEM INTO ONE PACKAGE" is so stupid as to be pathetic. Did the General Theory of Relativity neatly assimilate Newton's theory of gravity? Did they all just come together in one, big, happy theoretical family? No, dipstick. The major ontological commitments of Newton's theory were REPLACED; the only thing that was preserved was certain predictions it made.

And metaphysics ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE, dipstick, as I've pointed out billions of times. Its methodologies don't encompass questions like that, dummy. It isn't as such disqualified as a method for finding out truth regarding the NATURE of the reality that physics is uncovering.

Yes Aristotle's achievements were spectacular “using what he had”. What he DIDN’T have were the advantages of modern scientific knowledge upon which to base his premises and which subsequently proved his metaphysical arguments to be wrong...as will be the case with any metaphysical argument that conflicts with verified scientific facts.

Right. So, Newton was just as retarded as Aristotle, according to you. After all, Newton lacked all that we have in terms of modern scientific knowledge? What you're missing is that the methodologies of Aristotle display the scientific spirit in a way that modern methodologies would easily compliment.

And there you go with your SWEEPING claims. Be SPECIFIC. What metaphysical arguments were proven wrong? And what does that matter? Many arguments in the strong sciences were proven wrong, even in the last 150 years or so? And many of those arguments HAD metaphysical assumptions, including those of Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, et al. And NO ONE HAS ARGUED that metaphysical arguments can be corrected by scientific facts (even though you haven't defined 'fact' in a way relevant to this debate), and you can't seem to understand the nature of the project of integrating metaphysics and science in cases of explanatory conflict. No philosopher denies that metaphysical conclusions need to be given up when the scientific facts conflict with them; but there's a layer of methodological neutrality that exists between the two disciplines where progress in one domain will apply to a completely different scope of reality as compared to progress in another domain. And you've completely ignored my point that it goes the other way as well; that working physicists today have formulated hypotheses regarding real-world facts because of the conclusions of metaphysical arguments!

The philosophy of science is the study, from a philosophical perspective, of the elements of scientific inquiry. It has nothing to do with its practical application.

How this interacts with anything I said is anyone's mystery. And that you think philosophers of science don't write entire books and treatises on the nature of the practical application of the methods of science proves you're an ignorant idiot.

It seems that you don't "know this stuff". Relativity has transformed theoretical physics and astronomy during the 20th century. How’s your PhD coming on?

You still didn't answer my question. Because you're a lying scumbag.

What are your assumptions for the existence of “SOULS”?

One of my assumptions is that you don't have one.

[37818]

Unlike science, there is no method for testing the truth of metaphysical claims.

So are you saying the law of non contradiction and logic cannot be applied to metaphysical ideas?

Through modern physics, natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay.

Yeah. The only thing that has been observed regarding this seem to be that the number of neutrons with protons in an atom and nuclear decay are some how related.

Another counterexample is the spontaneous generation of virtual particles, which randomly appear even in complete vacuum. These particles are responsible for the Casimir effect and Hawking radiation.

That is really metaphysics. Since that is from theory. Never been observed nor is it possible to be observed. We in fact cannot observe anything without the presents of other matter. Matter has to be present. Vacuum chambers have material walls. Sub atomic particle observations involve material instruments.

Furthermore, just because most things within the universe require a cause, does not necessarily mean that the universe itself requires a cause; it may be eternal and infinite. Modern science is heading in this direction.

A metaphysical argument.

[Tassman]

And metaphysics ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE, dipstick, as I've pointed out billions of times. Its methodologies don't encompass questions like that, dummy. It isn't as such disqualified as a method for finding out truth regarding the NATURE of the reality that physics is uncovering.

Back to where we started.

HOW does one “find out the truth regarding the NATURE of the reality that physics is uncovering”, when in metaphysics there is no means of establishing a true premise (as opposed to an axiomatic assumption) and therefore no means of arriving at a true conclusion? At best one is left with intelligent conjecture. Interesting, no doubt, and possibly of some value but mere conjecture nonetheless...as Aristotle found out. It took science, not another metaphysical argument to refute his conclusions.


.

[Tassman]

So are you saying the law of non contradiction and logic cannot be applied to metaphysical ideas?

Of course they can and these qualities are essential for a 'valid' argument, but not necessarily a 'sound' argument whereby the premise and conclusion are true. The point being made is that there is no means for establishing the truth of an axiomatic premise in a metaphysical argument and therefore no way to know that the conclusion is true either.

Yeah. The only thing that has been observed regarding this seem to be that the number of neutrons with protons in an atom and nuclear decay are some how related.

That is really metaphysics. Since that is from theory. Never been observed nor is it possible to be observed. We in fact cannot observe anything without the presents of other matter. Matter has to be present. Vacuum chambers have material walls. Sub atomic particle observations involve material instruments. A metaphysical argument.

No it is a scientific premise with the potential for testing and verification. If a metaphysical premise had this potential it would be a scientific argument not metaphysical argument.

[shunyadragon]

You complaining about someone else being picky is irony at it's finest.

Matt has comprehensively shown you to be ignorant on this topic, and instead of being a true 'scientist', and learning something from someone more knowledgeable than you, all you can do is mock and insult. What a pathetic spectacle you make of yourself. It would be sad if you weren't such a self-important and pompous fool.

Your humility is overwhelming!

[mattbballman31]

Back to where we started.

If you want to go back to the beginning, that's fine by me. That's what you do when you don't have any answers. Pretend nothing has been answered, and return to where we started as if nothing has been said. Awesome tactic.

HOW does one “find out the truth regarding the NATURE of the reality that physics is uncovering”, when in metaphysics there is no means of establishing a true premise (as opposed to an axiomatic assumption) and therefore no means of arriving at a true conclusion?

Let's try this again.

There are, at least, two ways physics and metaphysics interact with each other:
1. Overlapping
2. Non-overlapping

In the first instance, metaphysics can demonstrate things that either contradict (pose an external conceptual problem) or independently corroborate a phenomenon predicted/explained/theorized by physics. It can go both ways. Physics can provide good enough reason to give up a metaphysical hypothesis (take your pick on your favorite Aristotle example, so he's your whipping boy) and metaphysics can provide good enough reason to give up, re-think, or guide new research in physics (like the metaphysical arguments against an actual infinite have actually done). The debate between physics and metaphysics here is a perfectly sensible one, and one metaphysicians are willing to have, and physicists have been (lately) unwilling to have.

In the second instance, physics will say something that metaphysics isn't about, or metaphysics will say something that physics isn't about: they will be non-overlapping domains of inquiry, as in the example of physics studying nature, and metaphysics studying the nature of nature. You can see this in the nature of any metaphysical topic where the progress of physics is absolutely irrelevant to its truth. Take a couple examples. Physics can progress forever and ever without any impact on whether or not metaphysical solipsism is true, whether or not Berkeley's subjective idealism is true, whether God exists, whether there are universals, the nature of causation, etc. This is because the solipsist, the idealist, the theist, the realist regarding universals, or a proponent of a particular view of causation takes everything that physics would tell them and give it their particular analysis in terms of their system or view. And the same goes for metaphysical naturalism/materialism! Those arguments have to be had on a metaphysical, philosophical level.

How? I already gave you the methodologies (these are 'the means of finding out'), the method's characteristics, and used an example from causation in post #33. As far as the nature of the 'finding out', it has to be in tune with the methods one is using relative to the domain of inquiry being engaged in.

At best one is left with intelligent conjecture.

And this goes back to what I already said to you in post 33. The proposition "At best one is left with intelligent conjecture." is the conclusion of an argument you're making. It's not a scientific argument. You're making a philosophical argument. Either your conclusion is intelligent conjecture or it isn't. If it is, and you think it's a good point, it'll have to be by virtue of a utilization of philosophical methodologies. If you disavow such methods, then what you think is intelligent conjecture is baseless. And if it's baseless, it's no longer intelligent. It's, as you say, 'mere' conjecture, and so I have no reason to agree with it.

[mattbballman31]

And notice how all the points about the demarcation problem were just dropped!

[mattbballman31]

Your humility is overwhelming!

Please go away, Shunya. No one likes you.

[element771]

It is merely the philosophical problem of determining what types of hypotheses should be considered scientific and what types should be considered non-scientific.

From:

https://quizlet.com/72455760/soci-314-flash-cards/

Third from the top on the Demarcation Problem.

The philosophical problem of determining what types of hypotheses should be considered scientific and what types should be considered pseudo-scientific or non-scientific

Well at least he added "It is merely" and left out "pseudo-scientific or"

[Tassman]

If you want to go back to the beginning, that's fine by me. That's what you do when you don't have any answers. Pretend nothing has been answered, and return to where we started as if nothing has been said. Awesome tactic.

Oh a great deal has been said, but you are trying too hard. My only argument has been that scientific methodology provides the means to gather data about reality whereas philosophy provides the means to create conceptual models of that data. The two are complementary, not exclusionary. But the conclusions of the former are to be accepted over those of the latter if there is conflict between them. E.g. evolutionary theory and statements about the nature of the universe, such as the premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument etc are scientific questions dealing with scientific data, not systems of metaphysical enquiry. There is no doubt that philosophy and logic are essential components of science, as far as they go, in that they promote self-consistency and help prevent errors of false inference. But, I repeat, they cannot uncover new truths about nature...only science can do that.

Well at least he added "It is merely" and left out "pseudo-scientific or"

Similar but but not the same.

[seer]

Oh a great deal has been said, but you are trying too hard. My only argument has been that scientific methodology provides the means to gather data about reality whereas philosophy provides the means to create conceptual models of that data. The two are complementary, not exclusionary. But the conclusions of the former are to be accepted over those of the latter if there is conflict between them. E.g. evolutionary theory and statements about the nature of the universe, such as the premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument etc are scientific questions dealing with scientific data, not systems of metaphysical enquiry. There is no doubt that philosophy and logic are essential components of science, as far as they go, in that they promote self-consistency and help prevent errors of false inference. But, I repeat, they cannot uncover new truths about nature...only science can do that.

Metaphysical - you mean like your claim that belief in God is merely the result of evolutionary pressure? Prove that claim scientifically. How is that theory open to falsification?

[element771]

Similar but but not the same.

Then I take it you are not denying this is where you lifted the sentence from.

[Tassman]

Metaphysical - you mean like your claim that belief in God is merely the result of evolutionary pressure? Prove that claim scientifically. How is that theory open to falsification?

Yes, religion offers a survival advantage because it organises cooperative behaviour and reinforces existing morals. However, as I've said before, just as humans evolved to be religious they can opt out of it out of it in the light of the evidence or lack thereof. We're are reasoning creatures after all.