In the definition of science thread, Rob commented
here that "True science is not (in my opinion) material empiricism, but metaphysical revelation."
In message
90, Rob went on to explain what he meant.
quote:
I would not use metaphysical revelation to find such things. And does gravity accelerate, or does the object by way of gravity?
Empericists attempt to find out how the machine works.
Metaphysics is a search for why the machine is here...
I simply think the latter of the two is more important to understand...
While most academics would agree that trying to answer the "why" of anything is a philosophy or theology question, not science.
But let us assume that trying to find out why the machine is here is a scientific and not a philosophical approach, what is the usefulness in answering the why part?
For example, how useful is it to find out why do parasites exist if we want to find treatments for them, especially if the answer lies in the metaphysical?
Another question is would metaphysical revelation had helped us gain the power of flight? Would it had helped us to put a man on the moon?
But especially, the part that interests me the most is
quote:
I would not use metaphysical revelation to find such things. And does gravity accelerate, or does the object by way of gravity?
My question is what would Rob's metaphysical revelation on gravity give us as an answer?
Edited by Admin, : Fix spelling.