Science's Metaphysical Assumptions?

[TheVeganAtheist]

I've had a recent spat with a person I have held in high regard for a long time (Gary Francione), a person who has shaped my conception of veganism. I suspect, that he is in fact a theist, however he dodges the question. He did bring up something that I am unfamiliar with, so if any of the amazing members on the forum can explain this to me, i would be much appreciative.

Gary stated that science has metaphysical assumptions. Could someone explain...
1) What are metaphysical assumptions (I couldn't find a link on the web)
2) What (if any) are the metaphysical assumptions of science?
3) What do you think of the following statement made by Gary:
" Well, then, if you have no problem with metaphysical assumptions in science, you're in a rather difficult place if you want to claim that non-atheists cannot justifiably hold their metaphysical beliefs. You see, everyone holds metaphysical, spooky beliefs. It's just a question of which ones."

Thanks in advance.

[Volenta]

Metaphysics touches on questions that can't be answered/established/measured in physics. So an obvious assumption would be that the world works according to natural mechanisms. But Francione's suggestion is very misplaced in the discussion, since the metaphysical assumptions that science works with are in no way comparable to metaphysical claims that the religious make (mostly about meaning and things like that). Things science can only establish on a metaphysical level are presented very humble and open for critic. Science has demonstrated to produce effective results, the metaphysical claims are on a whole other level than the dogmatic religious claims.

From what I know about Francione's religious convictions is that he is a Jain. But I assume that is because it fits with his pacifistic views. I wouldn't be surprised if he believed in something supernatural though.

[brimstoneSalad]

You are right that he is a woo- his lack of critical thinking has long been apparent from his deontology (I have scarcely read anything he's said on the matter of morality that I could really agree with).
I don't think it matters if somebody is theist or atheist- a woo is a woo. Either somebody is rational, or they've thrown critical thinking out the window and embraced magical thinking of some kind (usually being eager to ignorantly attack science in the process), and I don't think it has much to do with the theism/atheism question.

As to specific questions, Volenta covered this pretty well.

If you want to invite Francione here, I'll make an exception to my general rule to not debate people I regard as idiots , and debate him on the issue. He has enough public following to be worth trying to change his mind.
I'll even be nice to him.

[TheVeganAtheist]

If you want to invite Francione here, I'll make an exception to my general rule to not debate people I regard as idiots , and debate him on the issue. He has enough public following to be worth trying to change his mind.
I'll even be nice to him.

Id love to see that, but I highly doubt he would agree to do so. brimestoneSalad, you seem incredibly knowledgable regarding such a wide range of topics. Is this due to your profession (whatever that may be) or is that due to personal interest and research? Im curious on who you are and what you do, and how you have come to know a lot about a lot of things.

[CryoVirus]

If you want to invite Francione here, I'll make an exception to my general rule to not debate people I regard as idiots , and debate him on the issue. He has enough public following to be worth trying to change his mind.
I'll even be nice to him.

Id love to see that, but I highly doubt he would agree to do so. brimestoneSalad, you seem incredibly knowledgable regarding such a wide range of topics. Is this due to your profession (whatever that may be) or is that due to personal interest and research? Im curious on who you are and what you do, and how you have come to know a lot about a lot of things.

I'd have to agree, he has broken down so many of the topics I've placed and he really seems knowledgeable in every aspect he's needed, perhaps he does Research on the spot so that he can answer accurately and accordingly? Or he may have a highly educated mind . The latter is obvious. He obviously knows what he talks about.

[Psychologist]

First, it is important to find a common definition of the term "metaphysics".

Wikipedia defines metaphysics as entities not available through single empirical investigations - but rather underlying domains of these empirical measurable entities of realitiy.

I found this at the internet:

http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/a ... _v12n3.pdf

Questionable assumptions of modern physics.

And in much simpler contexts perhaps - questions about feelings (not measurable, not physically located) or thoughts (not measurable, not physically located).

Emm

[Volenta]

And in much simpler contexts perhaps - questions about feelings (not measurable, not physically located) or thoughts (not measurable, not physically located).

Well, to a certain degree we actually can measure such things in the field of neurology by scanning brains. But this is/was indeed a huge problem, for example in the study of animal behavior. Without invoking metaphysical assumptions we can't know anything about the subjective perception and feelings of animals (the same is also true for other human beings). This is what led to strict behaviorism, where animals were looked at and described as mere objects. You can only talk about what you can measure, so using emotional or psychological words is/was viewed as unjustified 'knowledge' and unnecessary anthropomorphizing animals.

[Psychologist]

And in much simpler contexts perhaps - questions about feelings (not measurable, not physically located) or thoughts (not measurable, not physically located).

Well, to a certain degree we actually can measure such things in the field of neurology by scanning brains. But this is/was indeed a huge problem, for example in the study of animal behavior. Without invoking metaphysical assumptions we can't know anything about the subjective perception and feelings of animals (the same is also true for other human beings). This is what led to strict behaviorism, where animals were looked at and described as mere objects. You can only talk about what you can measure, so using emotional or psychological words is/was viewed as unjustified 'knowledge' and unnecessary anthropomorphizing animals.

Right, Volenta! What a time of black boxes ... This is a good example of how science turns against itself. Just because we do not know something does not mean, it doesn´t exist...

[Twizelby]

I just try to reduce my assumptions. I think existence is an assumption. Science explains what is useful not necessarily what is real if that makes sense. That's why in debates I avoid the topic of evolution when combating anything in the realm of Atheism. I subscribe to the popeye theory "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam"