Science is afraid of Metaphysics

[Eodnhoj7]

The reality is that there are minds which cause/create things.

Do you have any examples of this?

By applying a measuring line which localizes a physical or abstract phenomenon.

[Skip]

And a microscope or computer is not a looking glass for looking at the particles which compose us?

No, those are extensions of organs of perception.

How can science argue

Not at all - any more than it can claim or be afraid. Science is not a person.

any strict objectivity when the photons it studies are the same photons which form the tool or the lens of the eye?

They're not studying the same photons. Neither an instrument nor an organ is composed of light. The light merely transmits information from one object consisting of many elements in specific combinations. If the subject of study were light-waves, they would be measured and recorded by devices other than the human eye or a microscope.

[Eodnhoj7]

And a microscope or computer is not a looking glass for looking at the particles which compose us?

No, those are extensions of organs of perception.

And a looking glass is not? Is there something I am missing in the metaphor?

How can science argue

Not at all - any more than it can claim or be afraid. Science is not a person.

Science, as an objectified observation or "atomic fact" or group of them, is an extension of the human person objectified but group agreement.

any strict objectivity when the photons it studies are the same photons which form the tool or the lens of the eye?

They're not the same photons. Neither an instrument nor an organ is composed of light. The light merely transmits information from one object consisting of many elements in specific combinations.

The point remains considering we use particles to study the very same particles. While the localized particle may not be the same other localized particle, the particle (in this case the "photon" or whatever as it is an element of the electromagnetic force which binds matter...use can use "quark" instead...it doesn't matter) is still the same form of locality and in these respects the form is folding through itself under the act of observation.

[Skip]

[extensions of organs of perception.]

And a looking glass is not?

And a looking-glass is not. It is a reflective surface of which one would not be aware at all without sight.

Is there something I am missing in the metaphor?

Yes. The fact you are trying to force real things into a metaphorical similarity that they do not, in fact, possess.

Science, as an objectified observation or "atomic fact" or group of them, is an extension of the human person objectified but group agreement.

No. Science is method of learning about the world.

The point remains considering we use particles to study the very same particles. While the localized particle may not be the same other localized particle, the particle (in this case the "photon" or whatever as it is an element of the electromagnetic force which binds matter...use can use "quark" instead...it doesn't matter) is still the same form of locality and in these respects the form is folding through itself under the act of observation.

You don't seem to have a strong grasp of "atomic facts". But you serve up a lovely self-reflexive metaphor.
Everything is made of matter.
Any particular configuration of matter and or its interactions can only be understood by using some other configuration of matter to study it.
Are you asserting that : Therefore, the results of all such study is somehow invalid?

[Eodnhoj7]

[extensions of organs of perception.]

And a looking glass is not?

And a looking-glass is not. It is a reflective surface of which one would not be aware at all without sight.

Is there something I am missing in the metaphor?

Yes. The fact you are trying to force real things into a metaphorical similarity that they do not, in fact, possess.

Science, as an objectified observation or "atomic fact" or group of them, is an extension of the human person objectified but group agreement.

No. Science is method of learning about the world.

The point remains considering we use particles to study the very same particles. While the localized particle may not be the same other localized particle, the particle (in this case the "photon" or whatever as it is an element of the electromagnetic force which binds matter...use can use "quark" instead...it doesn't matter) is still the same form of locality and in these respects the form is folding through itself under the act of observation.

You don't seem to have a strong grasp of "atomic facts". But you serve up a lovely self-reflexive metaphor.
Everything is made of matter.
Any particular configuration of matter and or its interactions can only be understood by using some other configuration of matter to study it.
Are you asserting that : Therefore, the results of all such study is somehow invalid?

You cannot argue everything is matter from a perspective of physics when the physics community is split over the definition of matter and in some cases claim to not study it at all. There is no definition of matter in physics.

In regards to the problem of "metaphor", while everything can have a metaphorical counterpart, in this case it does not. If I am studying a group of particles, we will use "quarks" or "photons"...whatever, the same particles we are observing are the same type that form not just our eyes but the brains which interpret them...observation has a characteristic looping phenomenon if viewed from a strict "matter only" perspective.

[Skip]

Aha. Nice loop.

[Eodnhoj7]

Aha. Nice loop.

Try avoiding it...the Pythagoreans and Platonists were on to something, along with the Taoists, Hindu's, etc.

[Skip]

They were into a lot of self-reflexive mumbo-jumbo that goes from noplace to nowhere. Many people still are.
It's a great handicap to human development and will almost certainly result in extinction.

[Eodnhoj7]

They were into a lot of self-reflexive mumbo-jumbo that goes from noplace to nowhere. Many people still are.
It's a great handicap to human development and will almost certainly result in extinction.

Progress is contradictory as the same point is progresses from is the same point it returns too, we can see this evidence in the line (which I probably posted 30+ times as an example already) as going back to the same point it progresses from.

Progress is merely a myth as we can see that much of the contributions modern knowledge has made have resulted with an equal number problems in regards to disease, mental illness, nutritional imbalances, war, sterility of the population, etc.

The scientific community has become a religion of self-sacrifice through the human ego, where man cycles through himself at the expense of all moral boundaries.

[Skip]

Did I forget to mention repetitious?

[QuantumT]

Philosophy = Metaphysics

It's just a different phrase.

Metaphysics is a myth... it is an excuse for those who are ignorant of science to play word games.

I see that clearly in a thread I made about a model for reality. Word games. I decided not to play

[surreptitious57]

The current scientific paradigm has a deep rooted and suppressed fear of metaphysics

Given that metaphysics is beyond the remit of science then any such fear is without justification
As whatever metaphysics has to say about the nature of reality is philosophical and not scientific

[A_Seagull]

The current scientific paradigm has a deep rooted and suppressed fear of metaphysics

Given that metaphysics is beyond the remit of science then any such fear is without justification
As whatever metaphysics has to say about the nature of reality is philosophical and not scientific

And also once a discussion about the nature of reality leaves the domain of physics or science it becomes indistinguishable from fantasy and illusion.

[bahman]

The reality is that there are minds which cause/create things.

Do you have any examples of this?

We decide therefore we cause. We can also create thoughts and transfer thoughts to others.

[bahman]

The reality is that there are minds which cause/create things. Science is completely wrong in the claim that all things work accordingly.

Science doesn't make any claims at all.
If any scientists claimed that certain minds can cause or create actual things (as distinct from images and ideas), he would have been wrong, and judged appropriately by his peers. It would also have to have been at least a century ago.
Any allegations in the present tense concerning scientific opinion should reference current scientific opinion.

It does. The main attempt in science is to understand how things function.