It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Difference Between Physics and Metaphysics

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by chr0naut
 


How do you think "science" was developed?

Right or left


Science, as it should be (a.k.a. scientific method) is very much a "left brain" type of activity (linear, logical) but the caveat on saying that is that the lateralization of brain function is in itself somewhat of a misnomer because brain function is actually spread across both lobes.




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
I think the various distinctions made in the discussion of the term at, say, wikipedia, are important to consider:

The sciences (discernment) used to be a branch of philosophy (love of wisdom) that was called "natural" philosophy. Physics is named after the treatises of Aristotle, as is metaphysics, which writings apparently appeared "after" (meta) the physics writings.

The sciences seem to have become separated from philosophy by the methods they used to obtain data and test hypotheses. Science used an empirical method which demanded experimental evidence to support any hypothesis.

However, the distinction has blurred over the years as more philosophers attempted to test their ideas empirically and as more scientists (physicists in particular) came to realize that they were running into limitations in their ability to obtain completely unbiased data from their experiments.

Some believe both fields are chewing on different ends of the same carrot, so to speak, and that one day the bulk of what is now considered metaphysics will be covered by the physics of the future.

I think there will always be room for a metaphysics. I also believe that the scientific community, if it could be called that, has not told us all that it has become aware of in recent years.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by l_e_cox
 


Philosophy is both the parent of science and of the empirical method.

Philosophy became separated from science when philosophers in academic settings became pompous discussers of other peoples philosophy most interested in getting tenure, and when scientists became dogmatic calculators with rigid minds and little imagination most interested in getting funding.

Of course there are exceptions in both fields.

"Scientists" love to pat themselves on their back for their superiority, even though its taken them nearly 2000 years to reproduce some of the thinking of the philosophers of Greece, who already understood the principles of natural selection, atomic theory, and were building calculators.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by l_e_cox
 


Philosophy is both the parent of science and of the empirical method.

Philosophy became separated from science when philosophers in academic settings became pompous discussers of other peoples philosophy most interested in getting tenure, and when scientists became dogmatic calculators with rigid minds and little imagination most interested in getting funding.

Of course there are exceptions in both fields.

"Scientists" love to pat themselves on their back for their superiority, even though its taken them nearly 2000 years to reproduce some of the thinking of the philosophers of Greece, who already understood the principles of natural selection, atomic theory, and were building calculators.


The other two are correct, but there is no evidence whatsoever that ancient greek philosophers had any clue about atomic theory



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDebunkMachine

The other two are correct, but there is no evidence whatsoever that ancient greek philosophers had any clue about atomic theory


Well, a lot of the world disagrees with you.

en.wikipedia.org...


The theory of Democritus and Leucippus held that everything is composed of "atoms", which are physically, but not geometrically, indivisible; that between atoms lies empty space; that atoms are indestructible; have always been, and always will be, in motion; that there are an infinite number of atoms, and kinds of atoms, which differ in shape, and size. Of the mass of atoms, Democritus said "The more any indivisible exceeds, the heavier it is." But his exact position on weight of atoms is disputed.[1]

Leucippus is widely credited with being the first to develop the theory of atomism, although Isaac Newton preferred to credit the obscure Moschus the Phoenician (whom he believed to be the biblical Moses) as the inventor of the idea on the authority of Posidonius and Strabo.[26] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes, "This theologically motivated view does not seem to claim much historical evidence, however."[27]



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Wow didnt know that, you sure did prove me wrong.




 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join