What are the boundaries between philosophy/science precisely?

[dschouten]

Does the metaphysical even exist (perhaps the question is moot)? I want YOUR ideas.

 

[Prometheus]

Does the metaphysical even exist (perhaps the question is moot)? I want YOUR ideas.

What does the word metaphysical mean to you. It would not be of value to debate the existence of something when each of us has a different definition for the word.

 

[Pergatory]

It would not be of value to debate the existence of something when each of us has a different definition for the word.

I believe he was asking:

I want YOUR ideas.

I believe that metaphysics begins where physics ends. When you go outside the realm of things which can be measured or studied, that is the metaphysical. Is abortion "right?" That is a philosophical question because science has no use for the idea of "right." Right is not x + y + z, it's outside the physical realm (meta-physical). The same can be said of ghosts, there has been no scientific data collected that suggests any influence from invisible spirits in any way on the physical world, therefore ghosts are metaphysical.

Do metaphysical things exist? That's a tough question due to the all-encompassing nature of the metaphysical. Let's take a smaller bite: Do hallucinations exist? If not, why can you see them? Taking that example even further, what of the things in your dreams? They still exist in some sense of the word, if only in your memory. That being said, all things exist, but the question of whether they are real or imaginary is the one I find to be most intriguing.

 

[dschouten]

What does the word metaphysical mean to you. It would not be of value to debate the existence of something when each of us has a different definition for the word.

Metaphysical has a precise meaning. When I use words, I use them as taken from the standard set of English vocabulary.

 

[wuliheron]

Does the metaphysical even exist (perhaps the question is moot)? I want YOUR ideas.

Yeah, that question is moot.

Science is derrived from philosophy. Even the idea that there might be a precise boundary between science and philosophy, is a philosophical and metaphysical idea. Certainly it is not a scientifically proven idea!

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Science is a mechanical process for acquiring useful knowledge, a tool.

 

[dschouten]

I believe he was asking:

I believe that metaphysics begins where physics ends. When you go outside the realm of things which can be measured or studied, that is the metaphysical. Is abortion "right?" That is a philosophical question because science has no use for the idea of "right." Right is not x + y + z, it's outside the physical realm (meta-physical). The same can be said of ghosts, there has been no scientific data collected that suggests any influence from invisible spirits in any way on the physical world, therefore ghosts are metaphysical.

Spot on old chap. The question posed is: do things exist outside of the physical realm?

Do metaphysical things exist? That's a tough question due to the all-encompassing nature of the metaphysical. Let's take a smaller bite: Do hallucinations exist? If not, why can you see them? Taking that example even further, what of the things in your dreams? They still exist in some sense of the word, if only in your memory. That being said, all things exist, but the question of whether they are real or imaginary is the one I find to be most intriguing.

You have tactfully avoided the question.

 

[dschouten]

Yeah, that question is moot.

Science is derrived from philosophy. Even the idea that there might be a precise boundary between science and philosophy, is a philosophical and metaphysical idea. Certainly it is not a scientifically proven idea!

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Science is a mechanical process for acquiring useful knowledge, a tool.

Stating that science is a mechanical process for acquiring useful knowledge begs the question "what kind of knowledge?", and this is closely related to the question that started this forum.

Spoken with a different nuance: where does the boundary lay between knowledge attainable by scientific means and knowledge of the metaphysical (that which science can never hope to understand)? Of course, this boundary may not even exist: if there is nothing that science cannot uncover, then nothing metaphysical exists and all knowledge is scientific.

 

[quantumdude]

Scientific theories of existents are those theories that are contingent on observations of the world. Metaphysical theories are those theories of existents that are not contingent.

"The metaphysical" exists inasmuch as it characterizes ideas. I don't think it makes any sense to use the term "metaphysical" as it is normally applied around here (eg: "Conscious energy is metaphysical, man. Groovy.") One can discuss any known existent on both a scientific and metaphysical level.

 

[Prometheus]

Metaphysical has a precise meaning. When I use words, I use them as taken from the standard set of English vocabulary.

Are you trying to be funny? You surely can't be serious.

 

[dschouten]

some thoughts on the matter...

We must separate the scientific process from science itself. The scientific process is the mechanical tool by which we gain scientific knowledge concerning the universe in which we live (i.e., concerning the interactions and state of the material world). However, science itself is the philosphy which governs the scientific process and asserts a number of fundamental principles:
0). Scientific theories can possibly predict and explain all material interactions (processes involving matter).
1). The best scientific theory is the one which best fits observation.
2). We can hope to generate useful theories because the universe is ordered and its basic laws unchanging.
3). No scientific theory is provable; theories are chosen by the process of elimination.

These four principles must be taken as axiomatic and together form the underlying philosophy of science. The question is then, does this philosophy allow for the existence of and/or say anything concerning things which are not matter?

For instance, can we infer anything concerning the existence of God through application of the scientific process?

 

[dschouten]

Are you trying to be funny? You surely can't be serious.

I am speaking "tongue-in-cheek".

If we can't agree on the meaning, then we might as well speak gibberish. This is why we have dictionaries; so that when I (correctly) type a sentence its meaning can be easily deduced by anyone who reads it. Any misunderstanding in the meaning is thus in my inability to properly construct a sentence which reflects my thoughts and not in the meaning of the words themselves.

 

[quantumdude]

The question is then, does this philosophy allow for the existence of and/or say anything concerning things which are not matter?

Allow? A philosophy cannot allow or disallow anything. It is a collection of ideas with no efficacy in the real world.

Now, can it have anything to say about nonmaterial things? That's more complicated. I would say that the scientific method can have nothing to say about things that cannot be detected, even in principle. For those things that can, the scientific method can in principle discover them. The catch is that it may force us to refine our ideas of what it is to be "matter", as has been done before. For instance, 150 years ago it might have been stated that a particle that interferes with itself when passing through a double slit diffraction grating is nonmaterial. Now we know better.

For instance, can we infer anything concerning the existence of God through application of the scientific process?

If god is undetectable, then no, we cannot. If it is, then we can in principle.

 

[dschouten]

Scientific theories of existents are those theories that are contingent on observations of the world. Metaphysical theories are those theories of existents that are not contingent.

No. I wouldn't agree with you here because of the simple fact that the metaphysical might exert some influence on the physical world and thus be contingent (albeit to a lesser degree) on observations of the world.

 

[dschouten]

Allow? A philosophy cannot allow or disallow anything. It is a collection of ideas with no efficacy in the real world.

This collection of ideas may contain one which does not allow for the existence of nonmaterial things by stating an obvious contradiction to their existence.

Now, can it have anything to say about nonmaterial things? That's more complicated. I would say that the scientific method can have nothing to say about things that cannot be detected, even in principle. For those things that can, the scientific method can in principle discover them. The catch is that it may force us to refine our ideas of what it is to be "matter", as has been done before. For instance, 150 years ago it might have been stated that a particle that interferes with itself when passing through a double slit diffraction grating is nonmaterial. Now we know better.

If god is undetectable, then no, we cannot. If it is, then we can in principle.

This speaks only in the sense of proving the existence of something which belongs to the realm of the "nonmaterial", and I am assuming that you think similarly with respect to disproving such things' existence.

 

[quantumdude]

No. I wouldn't agree with you here because of the simple fact that the metaphysical might exert some influence on the physical world and thus be contigenet (albeit to a lesser degree) on observations of the world.

As I said, "metaphysical" is a means of characterizing a theory, just like "scientific" is. It makes no more sense to say that "the metaphysical can have such-and-such an influence on the world" as it does to say "the scientific can have such-and-such an influence on the world".

"Metaphysical" (like "scientific") does not describe a class of existents, it describes a class of ways of thinking about them. For instance, you can get scientifc about the human brain ("How do currents flow in networks of synapses?") or you can get metaphysical about it ("How does my personal identity emerge from a network of synapses that themselves have no personal identity?").

In both cases, you're talking about a network of synapses. The synapses are neither metaphysical nor scientific. They just are. It's the questions, and the means by which we answer them, that are properly said to be either scientific or metaphysical.

 

[Prometheus]

If we can't agree on the meaning, then we might as well speak gibberish.

Your words say that we need agreement on meaning of a word, yet you throw out a highly loaded word, which surely you must recognize that many, many people will have widely different understandings of its meaning, and yet you expect that all of these people who do not know you or your meaning will just naturally understand exactly what you want to talk about.

You say that you want our ideas. Is your purpose to probe the various definitions of metaphysical that people will present in reaction to your word, or is it to discuss the concept in your terms?

Questions like yours are an invatation to speak gibberish. The only question is how much gibberish will go by before it is realized that that is the value of the communication.

 

[quantumdude]

This collection of ideas may contain one which does not allow for the existence of nonmaterial things by stating an obvious contradiction to their existence.

OK, we can know that some things cannot exist just on that basis. But the class of things ruled out by ideas alone does not seem to be very interesting. For instance, I can say without making any observations of the world that no married bachelors exist, but who cares?

This speaks only in the sense of proving the existence of something which belongs to the realm of the "nonmaterial",

Not really. What it says is that new information causes us to refine our concept of "nonmaterial" in such a way that things that were previously classified as nonmaterial, may one day be classified as material. But at the very least the thing in question has to be detectable in some way. Otherwise, we would not know of its existence at all.

and I am assuming that you think similarly with respect to disproving such things' existence.

If you're assuming that I think that the existence of the nonmaterial cannot be disproved, then you'd be right.

 

[dschouten]

As I said, "metaphysical" is a means of characterizing a theory, just like "scientific" is. It makes no more sense to say that "the metaphysical can have such-and-such an influence on the world" as it does to say "the scientific can have such-and-such an influence on the world".

Metaphysics: a priori speculations upon things that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. Thus "all things metaphysical" is (presumably) the class of existents and not the method of reasoning about them.

But fine then, let us just use the cumbersome term "nonmaterial" from now on, although I shall do so with great protest.

 

[quantumdude]

Metaphysics: a priori speculations[/color] upon things that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

Thus "all things metaphysical" is (presumably) the class of existents and not the method of reasoning about them.

I completely agree with the definition you quoted form the dictionary, but it seems clear that you don't. Just look at it: Metaphysics is a particular class of speculations[/color], not things. It says so right there in black and white (and red ).

But fine then, let us just use the cumbersome term "nonmaterial" from now on, although I shall do so with great protest.

We could use your proprietery definition of metaphysics, if you would present it.

 

[dschouten]

OK, we can know that some things cannot exist just on that basis. But the class of things ruled out by ideas alone does not seem to be very interesting. For instance, I can say without making any observations of the world that no married bachelors exist, but who cares?

Ideas are important. You could also say, upon making some observations of the world, that no God existed. Many would care.

My question is: does science state that no such statements can be made?

Not really. What it says is that new information causes us to refine our concept of "nonmaterial" in such a way that things that were previously classified as nonmaterial, may one day be classified as material. But at the very least the thing in question has to be detectable in some way. Otherwise, we would not know of its existence at all.

If you're assuming that I think that the existence of the nonmaterial cannot be disproved, then you'd be right.

You seem to be leaning towards a tautological statement here.

 

[dschouten]

I completely agree with the definition you quoted form the dictionary, but it seems clear that you don't. Just look at it: Metaphysics is a particular class of speculations[/color], not things. It says so right there in black and white (and red ).

We could use your proprietery definition of metaphysics, if you would present it.

Great. Metaphysics is a class of speculations, so metaphysical would be an adjective referring to things of which this class of speculations speaks, n'est pas?

 

[quantumdude]

Ideas are important. You could also say, upon making some observations of the world, that no God existed. Many would care.

?

Ideas alone cannot allow or disallow the existence of anything without playing empty word games, as in the case of the married bachelors. Your statement on god is not relevant to that point, because it cannot be known for certain.

My question is: does science state that no such statements can be made?

Science only comments on things that can be observed by the senses, or by extenstion, instruments designed to imitate senses. I thought that much was established.

You seem to be leaning towards a tautological statement here.

No, I'm shifiting attention away from the word "material" towards the word "detectable". If some hypothesized object cannot be detected--even in principle--then science has nothing to say about it.

 

[quantumdude]

Great. Metaphysics is a class of speculations, so metaphysical would be an adjective referring to things of which this class of speculations speaks, n'est pas?

Not according to any rule of grammar, but if that's what you want, OK.

 

[dschouten]

?

The "?" are superfluous.

Ideas alone cannot allow or disallow the existence of anything without playing empty word games, as in the case of the married bachelors. Your statement on god is not relevant to that point, because it cannot be known for certain.

Of course ideas can allow or disallow the existence of things, and in a much more non-trivial sense than the ridiculous objection you have presented. The most pertinent forces in our society are only "ideas" and they allow/disallow things all the time. It is only an idea that all men should be treated equally; it is only an idea that God does (not) exist; it is only an idea that fill in the blank; etc., etc.

There are certainly ideas which are laughable (such as the existence of married bachelors), but who cares? Let's not get fettered down with inane examples.

Science only comments on things that can be observed by the senses, or by extenstion, instruments designed to imitate senses. I thought that much was established.

Good. This is an answer to my question (and it took way to long, if I may say so myself).

 

[dschouten]

Not according to any rule of grammar, but if that's what you want, OK.

Definition: politics - the study of government of states and other political units. Yet, according to your majesty, speaking about "political things" is bad grammar.

I am getting sick of this side argument. Let's move on.

 

[quantumdude]

The "?" are superfluous.

Sorry, would you have preferred a ?

Of course ideas can allow or disallow the existence of things, and in a much more non-trivial sense than the ridiculous objection you have presented. The most pertinent forces in our society are only "ideas" and they allow/disallow things all the time. It is only an idea that all men should be treated equally; it is only an idea that God does (not) exist; it is only an idea that fill in the blank; etc., etc.

What on Earth are you going on about here?

Name one thing that is either forbidden or required to exist by any of those ideas.

There are certainly ideas which are laughable (such as the existence of married bachelors), but who cares? Let's not get fettered down with inane examples.

Examples such as those seem to be the only ones that meet the criteria of an idea that can either allow or disallow the existence of anything. You have yet to show otherwise.

Good. This is an answer to my question (and it took way to long, if I may say so myself).

Lose the attitude. The only reason we have done so much "back and forthing" here is that you don't seem to understand--among several other things--the dictionary definition of "metaphysics".

Besides, I gave answers to your questions with my first posts. In the first one, I said that a distinction between science and metaphysics can be made on the basis of contingency. In my second post, I further explained the necessity of observability for science to work. How much more quickly could I have answered?

 

[quantumdude]

Definition: politics - the study of government of states and other political units.

Yet, according to your majesty, speaking about "political things" is bad grammar.

Strictly speaking, if metaphysics is a set of speculations and methods of inquiry, then the adjective metaphysical characterizes those speculations and methods. And it's not just a dry point of grammar or definition, either. As an illustration I already noted that one can discuss something such as the brain either scientifically or metaphysically. So, is the brain "scientific" when we study it scientifically and "metaphysical" when we study it metaphysically?

I am getting sick of this side argument. Let's move on.

If you're sick of it, then why don't you drop it? I already said that I would agree to use your personal definition of metaphysics, even though I think it is meaningless. If a "metaphysical object" is an object that can be studied metaphysically, then all objects are "metaphysical". In that case, why not just call them "objects", and dispense with the adjective?

 

[dschouten]

Sorry, would you have preferred a ?

It is good to see I am not the only one with attitude; I enjoy such fine company in this class of existents - I, with you, am "attitudal".

What on Earth are you going on about here? Name one thing that is either forbidden or required to exist by any of those ideas.

Idea: Allah, as described in the Koran, exists.
Thing that is required to exist: Good. Bad. Hell. Heaven. Devil. Many virgins in Heaven for each martyr. Need I go on, or would you like to read it (that is, the Koran) for yourself?

You see, none of these things can be directly observed (and are thus relegated to study in the realm of metaphysics) but perhaps "this collection of ideas [science] may contain one [an idea] which does not allow for the existence of [these] nonmaterial things by stating an obvious contradiction to their existence".

Perhaps now you can understand the basis of my proposals. Also, I find it strange that you have not replied to what I think is my most important and revealing post in this thread concerning the four postulated fundamentals of science.

Besides, I gave answers to your questions with my first posts. In the first one, I said that a distinction between science and metaphysics can be made on the basis of contingency. In my second post, I further explained the necessity of observability for science to work. How much more quickly could I have answered?

I have revisited these posts and found this to be correct.

 

[dschouten]

semantics

For future reference I shall be using the term metaphysical as I have described it in my previous posts. We shall henceforth refer to all such linguistic inventions as Dugspeak. So you could say I am a Dugspeaker.

When you speak with me, you can surround all Dugspeak with the qualifier [Dugspeak] and [/Dugspeak], if you find this more suitable to maintaining your grammatical correctness.

 

[Evo]

Does the metaphysical even exist <snip>Metaphysical has a precise meaning. When I use words, I use them as taken from the standard set of English vocabulary.

I'm just jutting in here. Did I miss where you explained what your meaning of metaphysical is?

Here is the definition from the Merriam Webster dictionary online.

Main Entry: meta·phys·ics
Pronunciation: -'fi-ziks
Function: noun plural but singular in construction
Etymology: Medieval Latin Metaphysica, title of Aristotle's treatise on the subject, from Greek (ta) meta (ta) physika, literally, the (works) after the physical (works); from its position in his collected works

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

Also from Merriam Webster

ontology - a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being

cosmology - a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

epistemology - the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity

www.m-w.com

So, this is your definition? If not, what is your definition?

 

[balkan]

i'm wondering when the actual discussion of the topic begins? you guys always flip out, page up and page down, about absolutely nothing... (no offense intended )

personally, i think the boundarys are pretty fluent... you need an idea to a solution to some sort of problem or an answer to a question, and you need a way of approaching the solution aswell... that would be the philosophical part of science...
on the other hand, in order for your philosophy to have any kind of real validity, you need some amount of scientific research to back it up...
more specifically, philosophy deals with pilosophy, while science deals with science the fact that each of the areas demand some sort of contribution from the other makes the boundarys rather fluent...

btw... who cares about oppinions on whether or not some greater metaphysical designer exists, cause since you can't prove it in any way, due to it being solely metaphysical, whatever statement you make about it, remains just an oppinion...

 

[dschouten]

i'm wondering when the actual discussion of the topic begins? you guys always flip out, page up and page down, about absolutely nothing... (no offense intended )

This is true, and no offense is taken.

personally, i think the boundarys are pretty fluent... you need an idea to a solution to some sort of problem or an answer to a question, and you need a way of approaching the solution aswell... that would be the philosophical part of science...
on the other hand, in order for your philosophy to have any kind of real validity, you need some amount of scientific research to back it up...
more specifically, philosophy deals with pilosophy, while science deals with science the fact that each of the areas demand some sort of contribution from the other makes the boundarys rather fluent...

I think I understand you here. Allow me to rehash what you have just stated using my own words:
"philosophy and science are related in that scientific reasearch is required to give validity to philosophies, and philosophical reasoning is required to provide science with its basic premises, which are unprovable."

Is this an accurate depiction of your thoughts?

btw... who cares about oppinions on whether or not some greater metaphysical designer exists, cause since you can't prove it in any way, due to it being solely metaphysical, whatever statement you make about it, remains just an oppinion...

Aha! But if the realm of the material (that which is discoverable with scientific research) and the realm of the nonmaterial (that which is not discoverable with scientific research) overlap, than perhaps these opinions can be shown to be more than mere opinions. Perhaps some indications of the nature of the nonmaterial can be drawn from knowledge of the material?

 

[quantumdude]

It is good to see I am not the only one with attitude; I enjoy such fine company in this class of existents - I, with you, am "attitudal".

The smiley doesn't mean "I have an attitude", it means "I don't know what you're talking about."

This means "I have an attitude."

Idea: Allah, as described in the Koran, exists.
Thing that is required to exist: Good. Bad. Hell. Heaven. Devil. Many virgins in Heaven for each martyr. Need I go on, or would you like to read it (that is, the Koran) for yourself?

But that idea simply makes a bald assertion. It does not necessitate the existence of anything in the real world. No idea can do that, which is what I was saying. Religious claims in particular have no weight when it comes to discovering necessary truths about the world. Yes, it may be the case that those claims are true in order for the Koran to hold water, but they need not be true on ontological grounds.

You see, none of these things can be directly observed (and are thus relegated to study in the realm of metaphysics) but perhaps "this collection of ideas [science] may contain one [an idea] which does not allow for the existence of [these] nonmaterial things by stating an obvious contradiction to their existence".

But it is not possible for science (which is an a posteriori discipline) to rule out a priori the existence of anything. Scientific theories are supported by inductive reasoning. No scientific theory--including those that deny the existence of nonmaterial objects--can ever be known to be correct. This theory can state all the obvious contradictions that it likes, it would still lack the efficacy to enforce it.

Perhaps now you can understand the basis of my proposals. Also, I find it strange that you have not replied to what I think is my most important and revealing post in this thread concerning the four postulated fundamentals of science.

You mean these?

0). Scientific theories can possibly predict and explain all material interactions (processes involving matter).
1). The best scientific theory is the one which best fits observation.
2). We can hope to generate useful theories because the universe is ordered and its basic laws unchanging.
3). No scientific theory is provable; theories are chosen by the process of elimination.

This is all pretty common knowledge, so I didn't comment on it.

I have revisited these posts and found this to be correct.

Yes, I think it's right in line with the 4 axioms you stated.

 

[balkan]

This is true, and no offense is taken.

yeah... look above ^ it keeps on going

I think I understand you here. Allow me to rehash what you have just stated using my own words:
"philosophy and science are related in that scientific reasearch is required to give validity to philosophies, and philosophical reasoning is required to provide science with its basic premises, which are unprovable."

Is this an accurate depiction of your thoughts?

yeah.. a good example is the theories of atoms... it started off as a philosophy way, way, way back... and it was a great idea, but it didn't become valid until the 19'th century...
the philosophy of earth, water, air and fire as being the four elements of nature, on the other hand, was quite wrong, but it was backed up by scientific observations which made it quite valid at that time...

Aha! But if the realm of the material (that which is discoverable with scientific research) and the realm of the nonmaterial (that which is not discoverable with scientific research) overlap, than perhaps these opinions can be shown to be more than mere opinions. Perhaps some indications of the nature of the nonmaterial can be drawn from knowledge of the material?

they cannot "overlap" if one isn't discoverable by scientific research... cause that would, in your own words, make it discoverable by scientific research...
while it migth be the case, that god one day migth be discoverable by science, until that day, statements would remain just oppinions and would have way less validity that the earth, air, water and fire philosophy...

 

[Prometheus]

the philosophy of earth, water, air and fire as being the four elements of nature, on the other hand, was quite wrong, but it was backed up by scientific observations which made it quite valid at that time...

I wonder what you mean by wrong? All scientists recognize that modern science is wrong, in the context that you provide. Modern science is a stepping stone to our future understanding.

When you say that they are wrong, are you considering them wrong in a literal sense or in their symbolic sense? In their symbolic sense, the concept of the four elements is still quite valid, in my opinion.

 

[balkan]

I wonder what you mean by wrong? All scientists recognize that modern science is wrong, in the context that you provide. Modern science is a stepping stone to our future understanding.

When you say that they are wrong, are you considering them wrong in a literal sense or in their symbolic sense? In their symbolic sense, the concept of the four elements is still quite valid, in my opinion.

in the literal sense of course... it was just an example of how philosophers use sciense to support their ideas... and of course it was a stepping stone, like so much else is, and otherwise it would have gone rigth out the window in historical perspective... i bet there are tons of people who have had some sort of idea about matter, maybe even a guy that believed matter to consist of grated cheese (i hope i don't have to spell out that i am kidding here), but since there was no scientific evidence to back it up, it wasn't an idea that lasted...

 

[dschouten]

But that idea simply makes a bald assertion. It does not necessitate the existence of anything in the real world. No idea can do that, which is what I was saying. Religious claims in particular have no weight when it comes to discovering necessary truths about the world. Yes, it may be the case that those claims are true in order for the Koran to hold water, but they need not be true on ontological grounds.

Au contraire, my dearest thread-companion. Ideas can necessitate the existence of things in the real world, and it is upon confirmation of the existence of those things that the ideas are validated.

Thus, if the Koran, for instance, makes a number of prophetic statements -- which by their very nature will necessitate real-world phenomena (i.e., earthquakes etc.) -- and these prophecies are found to be correct, a statement concerning the validity of the metaphysical ideas found in the Koran can be made (like "Allah exists").

Now, if you speak of "necessitating" in the sense that, upon devising some idea, the things that that idea calls into existence are suddenly created, then you are correct above. But when I spoke, perhaps misleadingly, of necessitating, I meant to say that assuming an idea is correct, the such and such it claims must exist.

But it is not possible for science (which is an a posteriori discipline) to rule out a priori the existence of anything. Scientific theories are supported by inductive reasoning. No scientific theory--including those that deny the existence of nonmaterial objects--can ever be known to be correct. This theory can state all the obvious contradictions that it likes, it would still lack the efficacy to enforce it.

I like this, and I think you will come to regret saying this as I shall remember it for future reference.

 

[dschouten]

they cannot "overlap" if one isn't discoverable by scientific research... cause that would, in your own words, make it discoverable by scientific research...
while it migth be the case, that god one day migth be discoverable by science, until that day, statements would remain just oppinions and would have way less validity that the earth, air, water and fire philosophy...

What about considering a weaker term than "discover" such as "point to" or "seem to imply"?

 

[balkan]

What about considering a weaker term than "discover" such as "point to" or "seem to imply"?

that would still make it discoverable to some extend, like the time vector is implied in quantum mechanics and string theory... if it could leave traces in general science, then how could it
1) be 100% metaphysical?
2) be non-researchable?

 

[quantumdude]

Now, if you speak of "necessitating" in the sense that, upon devising some idea, the things that that idea calls into existence are suddenly created, then you are correct above.

That's exactly what I mean. And it's what I meant when I said that science cannot allow or forbid the existence of anything.

I like this, and I think you will come to regret saying this as I shall remember it for future reference.

Be my guest, remember it. I agree with it 100% (wouldn't have written it otherwise).

 

[donnie]

I believe in what you have to say about this - without doubt. Believe in what I have to say about it - without doubt. There you have it.