(March 22, 2019 at 8:07 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:Nobody's talking about metaphysics right now. We're talking about whether there are important questions which science is not well-suited to answer.(March 22, 2019 at 2:31 am)bennyboy Wrote: Yeah, it's a method which depends on material observations taken within a particular framework.Can you present at least one example of some knowledge claim or method that doesn't? That's the thing that you keep missing, here, lol. That's the thing that imperils the metaphysical as a set.
Quote:Yes, Benny, we use science to answer questions of cosmogony. Cosmogony is an active and productive branch of scientific research. Were you unaware of this, or are you simply frustrated at the rate at which it answers questions, or which questions it hasn't gotten round to answering yet?The science of cosmogony doesn't answer the question I asked. It's about how things unfolded once the framework was already in place.
Quote:What lead you to believe that science wasn't the proper tool for a subject that science is the most productive tool for? What, for that matter, about the sheer existence of an unanswered question do you take to be indicative or demonstrative of the metaphysical, what other tool do you think is the proper tool, and by what means do you make any such determination or inference?A simple understanding of the relationship between parent and child, and the fact that they cannot be conflated.