/sci/ - Science & Math

???
Where do they have METAPHYSICS as a subject?

>>3780741

In Universities... Where they teach Philosophy....
Like Oxford.

You fool!
That's just one branch of metaphysics.
Science is also a branch of metaphysics.
You should have picked it, mate.

>>3780741
>community college graduate

>>3780741
It's not a whole subject, it's a module. "MOMD" - Modules outside main discipline.

>>3780733
You have an interesting perception of metaphysics...

I'd like to know what you think it is about.

>>3780741
exacly

>>3780753
Fine. Anyway your decision was a good one.

>>3780769
Nope. See: >>3780756

If you value science at all you should have a better knowledge of where it came from than OP

>>3780779
Science is NOT a branch of metaphysics.

Physics, rather is a branch of Philosophy. Metaphysics essentially a 'meta' science as the name describes it. Science on the other hand is not a subject. Its a method.

>>3780779
Deducing properties of the natural world using premises and logical arguments.

>>3780792
The scientific method is a philosophy. Specifically, arising from the logical positivist branch of metaphysics.

areyouseriouslythisstupid?

It's like you really know absolutely nothing about philosophy, like the rest of /sci/.

>>3780763
Deducing properties of the natural world using premises and logical arguments.

>>3780801
No. But you are.

Science is not a branch of metaphysics. Get it straight. Philosophy of science is a separate, independent topic from metaphysics. Science of course OCCURS in all exploratory discussions.

It would be more demanding, and you're a retard for laughing in his face. You didn't laugh in his face, though, you said "ok, I guess," and then went on 4chan to pretend you laughed in his face.

>>3780808
Historically, science (specifically physics) rose from a branch of philosophy. Hence the term "Natural Philosopher" for early scientists. Astronomy being the major exception--it started as applied mathematics, and astronomical observations motivated philosophical and religious ideas.

>>3780824
SO?

Historically, chemistry emerged from Alchemy. Hence Alchemy is science?

>>3780808
>i know you are but what am i


are you seriously using this rebuttal? thats not a convincing argument

>>3780827
No, for the same reason philosophy isn't a science.

>>3780831
but science is a philosophy. specifically in metaphysics.

>>3780808

Other people use words differently than you do.

I recommend you read Collingwood's essay on Metaphysics.

>>3780833
Science isn't philosophy.

Certain tools science uses (deductive and inductive logic, the scientific method, etc) are borrowed form philosophy.

>>3780807
That's to broad. On the one hand physics is also just axiomatization and logical conclusions from them. F=m*a is not a fact in any sense, it's a mathematical formula relating things we give a name to (mass m, position x, time t) but it's not a direct property of the natural world. Just some approximation which works for some kind or reason.

I'd argue that Metaphysics is not about properties of the natural world as you say, not at all. It's more about the theories which can describe natural processes (like Newtonian mechanics) and the question why it's even possible that such describtions exist. The question in the section below is a highly metaphysical question. You can come up with many concepts which cathegorize questions of that sort, which helps. You can question pretty much everything about nature and science (the process) and metaphysics is doing this, as well as cathegorizing itself.

>>3780849
But that's wrong. Philosophy birthed science. Science is a branch of philosophy. It was established just like ever other branch of philosophy. it's the only philosophy that makes useful inferences but it still is a philosophy. it supposed to be a mark of respect to be labelled a philosophy. Too many things get labelled philosophy when they include no rigorous inquiry. religions and spiritualisms for instance

>>3780733

>Adhominem lol adhominem.

>>3780864
>It's more about the theories which can describe natural processes (like Newtonian mechanics) and the question why it's even possible that such describtions exist

>about the theories which can describe natural processes
A meta-natural theory is a property of the natural world
>describe natural processes (like Newtonian mechanics)
Which is what the least action principle does.

>question why it's even possible that such describtions exist
Right...

But how do you get true information to support these theories? It's not god given, it's not given by evolution and if it was evidence driven it would be physics.

bump

One final bump, because no one has answered any of my questions.

>>3780864
Also, your definition of metaphysics is very different to the one on Wikipedia.

>>3780733

In all seriousness now
How are mathematicians supposed to deduce anything about the outside world with formulas alone? It's like supposing that someone locked in a box from birth can deduce anything meaningful about the outside world.When in evolution were we granted with an intuition about realms out of our immediate reach?Neuroscience tells us that we don't even "know" the basic laws like a × (b + c) = a × b + a × c instinctively, they are a product of experience and statistical reasoning.

Check Mate Mathematicians!

>>3781182
>How are mathematicians supposed to deduce anything about the outside world with formulas alone?
They don't and don't pretend to.

>>3781765

Provide Empirical Evidence for that statement else you will lose all your credibility.

>>3781779
"Remote from human passions, remote even from the pitiful facts of nature, the generations have gradually created an ordered cosmos, where pure thought can dwell as in its natural home, and where one, at least, of our nobler impulses can escape from the dreary exile of the actual world."
-Bertrand Russell, on mathematcs