Are there boundaries in modern science?

  • Thread starter Kerrie
  • Start date
  • #1
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
841
15
Quantumcarl and I have a discussion going in the Mystics forum that I think brings up a point not yet discussed. In human civilization, science has drastically improved and changed our way of life. It would seem to me however today, that because science has paved a road to the reality of the universe that maybe some of us forget to take the detours and explore possibilities, otherwise known as metaphysics. We don't want to get off the main "path", and forgo looking for other avenues that may lead us to the same place but with perhaps a different (or more beautiful) perspective. Here is a quote Carl made that I find simple, honest, and truthful:

As far as I know science has no boundaries. What people call "metaphysics", by my definition, is simply a form of physics that has not been quantified, qualified, understood or correlated yet.

Are there some perspectives that are so locked into science that they place boundaries on their scientific discovery?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Here's what Dictionary.Com says about the word "metaphysics" ...

1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.

3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.
So in this respect it would seem metaphyiscs is not all that bad of a word. :smile:
 
  • #3
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Kerrie
Quantumcarl and I have a discussion going in the Mystics forum that I think brings up a point not yet discussed. In human civilization, science has drastically improved and changed our way of life. It would seem to me however today, that because science has paved a road to the reality of the universe that maybe some of us forget to take the detours and explore possibilities, otherwise known as metaphysics. We don't want to get off the main "path", and forgo looking for other avenues that may lead us to the same place but with perhaps a different (or more beautiful) perspective. Here is a quote Carl made that I find simple, honest, and truthful:



Are there some perspectives that are so locked into science that they place boundaries on their scientific discovery?

Well, I'm not sure that I completely understand the question, but I can tell you that Science cannot deal with anything metaphysical. When I say "metaphysical", I mean something that is not physical. If it is not physical then it doesn't interact with the physical world, and can thus not be studied by empirical means. However, it is up to belief (and belief alone) of the individual person whether there is or is not a metaphysical reality (since such a reality would never be able to interact with the physical realm, and would thus be unprovable and unfalsifiable).
 
  • #4
quantumcarl
770
0
Boundaries exist as agents of balance. We have a boundary between space and our atmosphere. This is a natural occurance that is neutral in nature yet has facilitated the fostering of life, which has been to our advantage in observing the universe.

There are many types of natural boundaries that tend to facitlitate great numbers of conditions and occurances that would not happen without boundaries.

In fact it is those very boundaries I'm talking about that have made it possible for humans to transend many boundaries.

The process is a long one... evidently... the collective human consciousness appears to evolve at a rate of change equal to that of fading paint or a crippled slug. But, evolutionary and revolutionary change has enabled us to go to the moon (beyond earthly boundaries) and to transend many social, cultural, religious or spiritual and scientific boundaries. As history has recorded and noted for us, boundaries will always be bypassed, in one form or another.

It may be a universal law or two.

One: there needs to be boundaries.

Two: Boundaries were made to be breached.

On the topic of Metaphysics: to me this term simply means "beyond physics"... which presents another boundary... the "beyond" boundary... or "out of reach". When you were 5 the light switch was "out of reach".

It wasn't until you were older or "more change had occured" that you were able to "turn on the lights".

It may be only a matter of more evolution and more revolution and more change before we can begin to incorporate some "metaphysical" laws into and in conjunction with physical ones.

Its up to the brave and the free to pursue these goals... outside the perceived boundaries of the majority of the masses.
 
  • #5
FZ+
1,599
3
Right Quantumcarl, I agree. The nature of science is indeed to transcend any boundaries, and to push forward the light. What we see as out of reach today may well be reached one day. The only real boundary is that of time, and this one shifts away from us.

But it is possible I guess to construct by tautology things that cannot by definition be reached by knowledge, and the best we can ever say of them is that they are indeterminate. But the question then arises - are those things, that do not act and cannot be felt, really meaningful in our reality? If we cannot feel them or their effects, are they even "real"?
 
  • #6
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by FZ+
Right Quantumcarl, I agree. The nature of science is indeed to transcend any boundaries, and to push forward the light. What we see as out of reach today may well be reached one day. The only real boundary is that of time, and this one shifts away from us.

Well, it may be the scientific objective, to transcend most boundaries, however it can never - by it's very nature - transcend certain boundaries, and one of those boundaries is the physical realm (if, in fact, anything else exists, it cannot be discovered by science).
 
  • #7
quantumcarl
770
0
Mentat, FZ+ ;

I think that, of course, ethics present the boundaries that can be best utilized by science. Particularly since using ethics facilitates a successful exploration and the most productive and least-infringing transendance of a boundary(ies).

As I've said in the Ethics thread, the success of an individual's (or corporation's) endeavor depends on how much of a success it will be for everyone and everything else concerned. That's ethics. And ethics is full of boundaries. Insulation so to speak. Yet, ethics facilitate the crossing of boundaries as well.
 
  • #8
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

What qualifies as [Cosmological] Metaphysics today may be physics tomorrow. Of course this is only true if we bother to consider all possible truths; including the ones that can't presently be subjected to the whole of proper scientific inquiry.

from Mentat
Well, it may be the scientific objective, to transcend most boundaries, however it can never - by it's very nature - transcend certain boundaries, and one of those boundaries is the physical realm (if, in fact, anything else exists, it cannot be discovered by science).

However the definition of the physical realm can change. You assume that unknowable truths exist. This could be true of course, but clearly this is an assumption having little basis for a defense.

Edit: This provides a closer definition to the subject at hand:
Merrian Webster:
1 a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology (2) : ONTOLOGY 2 b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience

Definition of Cosmology:
1. [n] the metaphysical study of the origin and nature of the universe.
what is it in Nederlands? Suppress ads
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Royce
1,514
0
There are no boundries. Boundries only exist in our minds and are in reality only the limitations that we set, the limit of our present knowledge and the limit of our imagination.

Quantumcarl's example of the boundry between our atmoshere and space is a perfect example of what I'm saying. The boundry exists as a convient definition in our minds but in physical reality does not exist as a boundry. The atmoshere becomes thinner and thinner until the difference between atmoshere and space is no longer detectable. Where is the boundry?

When Mentat mentions that by definition Metaphysics is beyound Physics and thus beyound Science, he forgets to use the words "present day." I can imagine a physics or science dealing with mental perceptions, beliefs, ideas and imagination itself. I can imagine a science someday proving the existence of spirit, soul, faith even God.
Present day science cannot and will not because it now lays outside the boundry of science. That does not mean that it will always be so.

Like Laws, boundaries and man made. Nature, reality, wherever you want to call it knows no laws or boundaries. It just is.
 
  • #10
quantumcarl
770
0
Originally posted by Royce

Quantumcarl's example of the boundry between our atmoshere and space is a perfect example of what I'm saying. The boundry exists as a convient definition in our minds but in physical reality does not exist as a boundry. The atmoshere becomes thinner and thinner until the difference between atmoshere and space is no longer detectable. Where is the boundry?

I understand the illusion of boundaries. Many boundaries are dependant upon subjective and anthropomorphic concepts (however, these concepts are based on an education in the physical world.

Where wind cannot pass through the boundary of a windsheild, the sun can pass light through it. Where most physical entities cannot pass directly through this planet... neutrinos can and do every second of the day.

So we begin to see that boundaries are specific to certain elements... and give way to other elements.

This doesn't mean they are non-existant. It means they exist under certain conditions and do not under other conditions... depending on the elements involved. Very quantum, I might add.

The specifications of a boundary resemble ethics, in a way.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
wimms
496
0
Originally posted by Kerrie
Are there some perspectives that are so locked into science that they place boundaries on their scientific discovery?
What immediately comes to mind is that every single theory starts with postulates - something that cannot be explained or reduced further, concepts that are circular. This is principal boundary. It can be shifted, but it can never be removed. There is always something that escapes explanation and has to be taken on faith.

Another boundary that comes to mind is causal logic. Its so deep and so well justified by empirical evidence that there is no room left for something that turns out to be internally inconsistent by today's logical standards. This sets sorts of boundary.
 
  • #12
Royce
1,514
0
Originally posted by quantumcarl
The specifications of a boundary resemble ethics, in a way.

In a sense, as I maintain that all boundries are produces of the mind, the specifications of a boundry resemble ethics in every way.

What we call physical boundries are physical properties that determine physical behavior under given circumstances. We define such behavior as a boundry because it is more convient that explaning the behavior every time.


Originally posted by wimms
What immediately comes to mind is that every single theory starts with postulates - something that cannot be explained or reduced further, concepts that are circular. This is principal boundary. It can be shifted, but it can never be removed. There is always something that escapes explanation and has to be taken on faith.

Another boundary that comes to mind is causal logic. Its so deep and so well justified by empirical evidence that there is no room left for something that turns out to be internally inconsistent by today's logical standards. This sets sorts of boundary.

These comments are more in line with the term "limit" which I agree is another meaning of the term boundry; but, not in the sense of Kerrie's original intent IMHO. In any case these too are mental limits or boundries in that within the boundries is principal and logic, outside the boundry is non-principal and illogic. Boundries that we here take particular delight in crossing all of the time.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What qualifies as [Cosmological] Metaphysics today may be physics tomorrow. Of course this is only true if we bother to consider all possible truths; including the ones that can't presently be subjected to the whole of proper scientific inquiry.

However the definition of the physical realm can change. You assume that unknowable truths exist. This could be true of course, but clearly this is an assumption having little basis for a defense.

But Science (according to the Scientific Method) is supposed to deal only with replicable experimentation. As I've shown in other threads, you cannot experiment with something that is not physical (as you would have to have an intermediary that was neither physical nor non-physical between you (a physical being) and whatever non-physical thing you are studying).
 
  • #14
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Royce
There are no boundries. Boundries only exist in our minds and are in reality only the limitations that we set, the limit of our present knowledge and the limit of our imagination.

Not true, there are boundaries on Science, and they are clearly set out in the Scientific Method (which is the cornerstone of the Philosophy of Science itself).

When Mentat mentions that by definition Metaphysics is beyound Physics and thus beyound Science, he forgets to use the words "present day."

No, I didn't forget, I chose to omit that term, since it doesn't apply. Perhaps there are many things that we think of as metaphysical, which will (in the future) be shown to be physical, and thus scientifically testable (such as consciousness (AFAIC), and God (though I am not at liberty to purue a discussion of why God may be physical, or really anything to do with God), but if something is actually non-physical, it cannot be scientifically tested.

I can imagine a physics or science dealing with mental perceptions, beliefs, ideas and imagination itself. I can imagine a science someday proving the existence of spirit, soul, faith even God.
Present day science cannot and will not because it now lays outside the boundry of science. That does not mean that it will always be so.

I agree entirely with what you say above, provided these things (imagination, God, spirit, faith, etc...) are shown to be physical.

Like Laws, boundaries and man made. Nature, reality, wherever you want to call it knows no laws or boundaries. It just is.

Yes, but if there is no set pattern as to how it behaves (not set, as in "the Universe obeys this pattern/law", but set as in "the Universe always does that in that particular way") then Science is useless.
 
  • #15
Royce
1,514
0
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, but if there is no set pattern as to how it behaves (not set, as in "the Universe obeys this pattern/law", but set as in "the Universe always does that in that particular way") then Science is useless.

Mentat go back and read my previous post. We are replying to this thread at the same time and are therefore getting out of sync.
I agree with everything that you say about present day science but who can say what the science or the scietific method of tomorrow will be. It may well have to expand its scope and begin looking into "that which cannot be shown to exist" in order to show that it can be shown to exist. IOW I can't see what I won't or can't look at. To see what I can't see I will have to look in another direction, in another way. It really is as simple as that.
 
  • #16
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Royce
Mentat go back and read my previous post.

I did. That's how I got part of it quoted in my response.

We are replying to this thread at the same time and are therefore getting out of sync.
I agree with everything that you say about present day science but who can say what the science or the scietific method of tomorrow will be. It may well have to expand its scope and begin looking into "that which cannot be shown to exist" in order to show that it can be shown to exist. IOW I can't see what I won't or can't look at. To see what I can't see I will have to look in another direction, in another way. It really is as simple as that.

I beg to differ, dear friend. It gets slightly more complicated when you realize that Science cannot "look in another direction". It is not for a sub-system of Philosophy to look in any direction other than that which it was intended for. That is left to those who stay in the broader realm of Philosophy itself.
 
  • #17
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Royce
There are no boundries. Boundries only exist in our minds and are in reality only the limitations that we set, the limit of our present knowledge and the limit of our imagination.
Boundaries don't exist? Sure they do. Try driving your car over the edge of a precipice or, smack dab into a brick wall. Of course by then it would be a little late to realize that there are "real" limitations when it comes to driving a car. :wink:
 
  • #18
Royce
1,514
0
Originally posted by Mentat
I beg to differ, dear friend. It gets slightly more complicated when you realize that Science cannot "look in another direction". It is not for a sub-system of Philosophy to look in any direction other than that which it was intended for. That is left to those who stay in the broader realm of Philosophy itself.

Don't you see what a constricting and unrealistic limit that places on science? I realize that we have a way to go yet;but, when science has discovered the theory of everything and the grand unification theory where is it going to look then. Things change. Ideas and paradigms change. Even limits change. Vertually every limit mankind has run into has only slowed him down for a moment until he can figure out a way to go beyond that limit or push the limit beyound it's boundry. Is it going to die because there is no where else to look, nothing left to discover? I don't think so. I think that we will discover that "there is more under the stars, Horatio, than drempt of by our philosophers."
 
  • #19
Originally posted by Royce
I think that we will discover that "there is more under the stars, Horatio, than drempt of by our philosophers."

Actually, so far it has been quite the opposite: scientists keep telling philosophers that there's far less under the stars than they used to dream. So much so that philosophers no longer dream.
 
  • #20
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
841
15
But Science (according to the Scientific Method) is supposed to deal only with replicable experimentation. As I've shown in other threads, you cannot experiment with something that is not physical (as you would have to have an intermediary that was neither physical nor non-physical between you (a physical being) and whatever non-physical thing you are studying).

my topic is trying to address the issue of attempting to explore what we cannot currently prove with our known science...sounds as if this literally defies the current definiton of science itself...
 
  • #21
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Royce
Don't you see what a constricting and unrealistic limit that places on science? I realize that we have a way to go yet;but, when science has discovered the theory of everything and the grand unification theory where is it going to look then. Things change. Ideas and paradigms change. Even limits change. Vertually every limit mankind has run into has only slowed him down for a moment until he can figure out a way to go beyond that limit or push the limit beyound it's boundry. Is it going to die because there is no where else to look, nothing left to discover? I don't think so. I think that we will discover that "there is more under the stars, Horatio, than drempt of by our philosophers."

So be it, but remember that I am placing this limit on Science, not on learning itself (=philosophy). That is what is wrong with your interpretation of what I'm saying. I'm not saying that mankind can't discover the metaphysical, merely that they can't use science to do it (though I, personally (currently), don't think they can at all, that has nothing to do with whether they could (even in principle) use science to accomplish it). Science is not our only medium for discovering truth (you, of all people, should be aware of this).
 
  • #22
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Kerrie
my topic is trying to address the issue of attempting to explore what we cannot currently prove with our known science...sounds as if this literally defies the current definiton of science itself...

Pretty much. Philosophy begot Science, and thus Science is much more limited than Philosophy. Philosophy as a whole (and many subsets of it) is/are capable of discussing the metaphysical, but at least one of it's subsets is incapable of this: Science.
 
  • #23
FZ+
1,599
3
Originally posted by amadeus
Actually, so far it has been quite the opposite: scientists keep telling philosophers that there's far less under the stars than they used to dream. So much so that philosophers no longer dream.
Er... no. The prime assumption of inquistive science is that there is an infinity of knowledge out there, here and any where. So much that our finite dreams cannot only be insufficient. Why dream, when you can see?
 
  • #24
Royce
1,514
0
Originally posted by amadeus
Actually, so far it has been quite the opposite: scientists keep telling philosophers that there's far less under the stars than they used to dream. So much so that philosophers no longer dream.

Well, that's the second time today that it has been proven to me that I am no philosopher. I still dream! BTW the partial quote was from Shakespear's Hamlet back when scientists were still concidered philosphers. The point is still well taken.

So be it, but remember that I am placing this limit on Science, not on learning itself (=philosophy). That is what is wrong with your interpretation of what I'm saying. I'm not saying that mankind can't discover the metaphysical, merely that they can't use science to do it (though I, personally (currently), don't think they can at all, that has nothing to do with whether they could (even in principle) use science to accomplish it). Science is not our only medium for discovering truth (you, of all people, should be aware of this).

Mentat, you write as if science were a done deal. If science is only what can be proven and what can be measured then science is already done. It has passed into the realm of knowledge and not exploration, speculation or discovery. How can science explore new areas if it limits itself to only that area where it knows it can be proven? If it already knows why explore? This is not one of the problems with the scientific method. First we speculate, FIRST WE SPECULATE, then we hypothesize then we think up experiements and make predictions and then test and retest but rarely disprove something only say that no evidence has been found to support. If support is found and no contradictions then it may become a theory. But. first we speculate. How can we speculate or why would we if we don't go outside the box, the know, the proven,
The scientific method is not carved in granite nor was it passed down carved in stone tablets from the mount.
There are no natural boundries to science only man made boundries that are artificial. You seem intent in putting up more or higher fences. "This far and no farther"
Nonsense!
 
  • #25
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
841
15
Originally posted by Royce
Mentat, you write as if science were a done deal. If science is only what can be proven and what can be measured then science is already done. It has passed into the realm of knowledge and not exploration, speculation or discovery. How can science explore new areas if it limits itself to only that area where it knows it can be proven?

royce, bravo to you, you have succeeded in communicating my exact point...first we must speculate...
 
  • #26
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,254
2
My meager contribution.

MUSH. Take mashed potatoes, peas, butter, scrambled eggs, milk, string beans, corn, carrots, gravy . . . (an actual breakfast dish of a friend of mine), mush them all together into a big pile in the middle of your plate, and then debate what each ingredient offers in the way of taste.

Science . . . it reveals what it reveals. If science doesn't reveal some aspect of reality, one cannot interpret that to mean an aspect of reality doesn't exist, or that science isn't valuable for what it does reveal.

Science has proven itself on the world stage better than all other knowledge disciplines combined; but then, it has such incredibly practical and obvious benefits to assess! Yet, I recognize in my life that what is most obvious isn't necessarily the most fulfilling.

So, I give science it's due . . . and reserve my deepest appreciation for what teaches me how to most deeply appreciate my life.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Originally posted by Mentat
But Science (according to the Scientific Method) is supposed to deal only with replicable experimentation. As I've shown in other threads, you cannot experiment with something that is not physical (as you would have to have an intermediary that was neither physical nor non-physical between you (a physical being) and whatever non-physical thing you are studying).

But again you assume a static definition for what is physical.

I think we are talking about the difference between the methodology and the purpose and spirit of science. We must allow for faith based [hunches, lucky guesses, educated intuition] exploration and discovery. There is a difference between that required to support a theory and that worthy of exploration. How are we to prove the answer to a thing using the scientific method, before we can even explore the question or claim?

You all but disqualify fundamental research.

I guess that Darwin should have stayed home since he couldn't prove anything of value would come from his voyage.

Oh yes , I:wink: almost forgot that smilies annoy you
 
  • #28
Royce
1,514
0
I am a gardener. Over the years I have started many gardens in soil that was at least for my garden virgin. The first year with little more than breaking ground and planting seeds and seedlings I would have abeautiful bountiful garden with little or no work. My main task would be to thin prune and keep the plants as well as weed in check. The next year my garden would be attacked by disease and harmful pests and I would need to add soil conditioners and fertilizer. The year after that even with crop rotation, interplanting, compost, lime, fertilizers (natural and chemical) my garden would need constant care and vigilence, i.e. lots more work for less and less productivity.
For the last two hundred years or so we have been gardening on the virgin soil of knowledge and science. Each new crop of knowledge is getting harder and harder to reap. It is now much more expensive and much more work to just verify what we predict or know should happen. Yet still we plow the same ground over and over again. Every once in a while someone breaks new ground in science and the bounty is almost overwhelming. We can name these ground breakers on the fingers of our hands yet their are thousands of scientist that do the dirty work of digging out every last bit of knowledge contained in this new ground.

Yet it is the ground breakers, the explorers of new territory that shake and shape our world. Just think back of what it was like in 1900 when scientist thought that they might bee nearly done learning all that was to be known. They were nearly right as far as classical physics was concerned. But then along came relativity and quantum mechanics and nuclear physics. Who knows what's next or where the new ground will be broken?

I can gaurentee you that it will be somewhere that we least expect and is vertually unknown and even undreamed of now. Where ever it will be, it will be somewhere science has yet to look and somewhere where it is, to date, unproveable, unverifiable and unmeasureable. If it isn't then it isn't new ground and it isn't new exploratory science. It would be just plowing over and reworking the same old ground. We may glean a bit of new information out of it but it is reworking known scientific knowledge not doing new scientific discovery.
 
  • #29
FZ+
1,599
3
Originally posted by Royce
Well, that's the second time today that it has been proven to me that I am no philosopher. I still dream! BTW the partial quote was from Shakespear's Hamlet back when scientists were still concidered philosphers. The point is still well taken.
I still diagree vehemently with amadeus here. To me this appears an utter untruth, and I cannot comprehend how someone can agree with it. Did philosophers dream about quarks? Dark energy? That the pin-pricks of light we saw in the heavens were entire worlds? That in the mess of turbulence there is hidden beauty? That simplicity sits hand in hand with complexity? That empty space is neccessarily a hive of action? That great holes exist in space, swallowing up light? That reality is so intensely difference from what we intuitively thought? No - all we dreamed were ego-centric dreams, views of the world based on us, spiced up a little by man-like gods, ideals and fairies perhaps, but in the end going down to a chant of me, me, me!

It is good that we do not dream as we did. It is good that science tells us of the great picture, the great cosmic music of which we are but one, brief part. It is good that science has opened the eyes of philosophy, and that we no longer sleep, but strain our eyes to see. Even when we are speculating, dreaming or imagining, we now dream of the farthest shore, not attempting to exult ourselves. The good ideas of the past are not dead. They have merely seen light.
 
  • #30
Royce
1,514
0
I think, FZ+, that we were with tongue firmly in our cheeks speaking of some of the "philosophers" here in this forum, at least I was.
Maybe not so metamorphically speaking all that philosophers do is dream when they philosophize. All of the 'groundbreakers' and 'world shakers' were and are dreamers dreaming outside the box. To me that is what science is all about. Then comes the hard work of see and proving those dreams true or not.
 
  • #31
Mentat
3,918
3
People, let's get something straight here: I have absolutely nothing against speculation. In fact, I encourage it, and heartily take part it in it myself.

I also have no objection to science's speculative nature (if reality was obvious to us, we'd have no need of science).

However, while learning (=philosophy) may have no boundaries, science (which is just one of many branches of philosophy) does - otherwise, it wouldn't be a branch, but just another name for "philosophy". Science is limited that which is repeatable in experimentation, and science is limited to "how", "what", "which", "where", and "when" questions, it cannot ask "why" questions.

These are not just my opinion, they are what I've gathered from studying the Scientific Method (philosophy of science). I don't see why it should trouble people on the Philosophy Forum that science has boundaries. The real question is: does Philosophy have boundaries?
 

Suggested for: Are there boundaries in modern science?

Replies
10
Views
567
Replies
3
Views
674
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
788
Replies
1
Views
261
Replies
14
Views
227
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
575
Replies
86
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
462
Top