(April 15, 2016 at 2:32 pm)RozKek Wrote: I assume you mean science is based on philosophy, alright, but they aren't mutually exclusive are they? So what is the problem of using science in a philosophical discussion? I refer to Drich right now.
You're right that they are not mutually exclusive. What Drich and I are saying is that there is a one-way kind of dependency between science and philosophy. As it specifically relates to metaphysics, the cosmological arguments concerning the existence of God simply happen at level of inquiry above natural science. And here is why...
Scientific inquiries rely on logical proofs. The validity of logic does not depend on any scientific finding. So for example you can use a syllogism to demonstrate a scientific fact, but no scientific fact demonstrates the validity of logic. Likewise, science assumes that particular objects can be grouped together in universal categories and also assumes that we can know facts applicable to all members of that category. But science cannot tell you the ontological status of categories as categories, i.e. are they is some sense real or are they just names. The same goes for mathematics. Mathematical and philosophical inquires produce knowledge about certain kinds of objects without any reference to how those objects express themselves in nature. The value of pi doesn't come from the average of measurements taken from various circular objects. Pi has an absolute value that does not depend on empirical observations. And there is no possible test that would falsify that absolute value.
Some people say that all legitimate truth claims must be testable and empirically verified. But they don't apply that requirement to the claim "all legitimate claims must be testable and empirically verified". And for good reason. They are making a philosophical claim about natural science and how natural science should be performed but they are mistakenly applying it to philosophical claims. In other words, the so-called defenders of rationality, are making an illogical circular argument.
