Posted: Jun 16, 2011 5:38 am
Indeed. Just because it's beyond the reach of science doesn't mean that the terms are meaningful or that the areas are valid realms of inquiry. It does, however, mean that the question of the validity of the areas is not suitable for scientific discussion. For example, the notion of a "mental" aspect to reality (as suggested by dualism) may very well be absolute and utter nonsense, but no amount of scientific evidence will ever be able to demonstrate it, nor will you find any evidence to suggest that materialism is a valid assumption for the 'reality' of the world.
IIzO wrote:I find it hard to say that science doesn't say anything about metaphysics while everything in science is about properties of things within nature.
The problem most people have is failing to recognise the difference between the scientific field, and the philosophy that underpins it. For example, whilst physics studies the movement of objects and invokes concepts such as causality, etc, to explain them, the scientific findings and interpretations are not metaphysical (i.e. they simply discuss phenomena). When physicists start talking about the fundamental nature of objects, and causality, and time, etc, then they are engaging in the philosophy of physics - which is a metaphysical, and non-scientific, pursuit.
Once people realise that science and philosophy are inextricably linked, and cannot be in conflict, issues like "science cannot say anything about metaphysics" become much easier to understand.