I agree with your explanation. The question is certainly hard. There are probably things in nature that escape our logic and understanding, such as the very nature of the physical world – “noumenon” for example, “nothingness”, unlimited series of numbers, infinite small or infinite big, things beyond our universe, and of course, if you want, God. All are kinds of theoretical concepts. For some of them we may agree that they are creations of our mind, illusions that do not have to exist. Although we still find it hard to accept that they simply are not there. Our logic forces us to believe that they have to exist. We know that what were theoretical concepts in the past, many of them, science has shown, are real physical objects (molecules, atoms and similar).The Universe cannot be limitless – we think, there must be some end. Yet the end implies that there must be something behind it. Since science needs an object of enquiry or it must be at least a possible theoretical object, potentially definable as an object of enquiry, these things then belong to metaphysics. Yes, it may be said that our faulty logic and may be our language create problems that have as a result a field of enquiry that belongs to the man-made field of metaphysics. However, we cannot accept that, for example, our enquiry about the causes in the world, has to stop at certain stage because we run into language problem and beyond this particular stage of enquiry, there are no causes and no effects! Science of course has been moving the limit where the metaphysics begins. The problem is that we do not see in principle how such metaphysical problems can be solved even then when science will be able to explain everything. We may ask the question what the explanation will offer when we do not have concepts that will come into explanandum. For example what is “behind” properties of the physical objects? We of course immediately know that we cannot describe that physical “body” or object of some kind without citing some further properties! So may be to answer the question: what science does is trying very hard and consequently to satisfy the quest for explanations that are in principle out in the world, while metaphysics explores the world where explanations do not work in principle and explores our understanding and our reasoning. Both move the limits of knowledge further away, our knowledge increases – but the questions remain.

My comments on this question is closely linked to other reflections and personal considerations that have appeared previously in relation to other topics being debated on RG. On this occasion, I’d like to develop those ideas and personal considerations and put in evidence that the individual science is talking about is the same person considered by metaphysics. Then, a fact cannot be ignored whereby scientific description of the world fails to satisfy that need of understanding reality on the part of each individual, and which moves from an original drive, that is from a question which is both scientific and existential: "World: what is it?"

This question must initially find its answer in every man's life, understood as a cognitive moment, that is knowledge of a 'personal' truth that concerns the individual in his uniqueness and individuality; in other words an existential truth. This result can be achieved through the spiritual component of the human essence that should lead us to recognize the presence of each of us trough his actions that take place in time and space. Therefore, every individual cannot fully and directly understand his essence unless it is ‘mediated’ by his/her actions and experience. Therefore, the approach will be a method of critical reflection on them to grasp their meaning and the significance of the human being that produces them.

Metaphysics is helpful in that it seeks to explore and decide what it is metaphysically possible, or what could be in reality. It comes into play before scientific disciplines, since 'experience alone cannot determine what is actual, in the absence of a metaphysical delimitation of the possible'. (E. J. Lowe , The Possibility of Metaphysics : Substance, Identity, and Time, 1998, Chp. 1, ‘The Possibility of Metaphysics’, Oxford Univ. Press, p.9).

Thus, metaphysics exercises a 'driving' function in respect of science. I think it is appropriate to bear in mind and emphasize what Popper had highlighted, namely that if from a psychological point of view empirical research is impossible without general metaphysical ideas, from the historical point of view ideas which initially ‘floated’ in the regions of metaphysics, then were transformed into important scientific doctrines. Moreover, Popper argued that the metaphysical doctrines, although they were not empirically verifiable, are always rationally objectionable and debatable and, therefore, are not merely subjective and emotional expressions.

Philosophers of science are divided on the issue of science and metaphysics. The Logical Positivists for instance, were against the intrusion of metaphysics in science, and they tried to develop a positivist philosophy of science which is based on observation statements, i.e. wholly empirical. This project has been subjected to several criticisms, for example on whether it is viable to draw a neat distinction between the theoretical and the observable.

However, there are rationalist philosophers of science such as Popper, Lakatos and Elie Zahar, who have no qualms with the invocation of metaphysics in science, although for different reasons.

In contemporary philosophy, metaphysics remains an important and respectable part of the subject, and not considered meaningless as the Logical Positivists would have it, nor should it be consigned to the flames as David Hume would have it. But 'metaphysics' in this sense refers to 'rational metaphysics' rather than 'transcendental metaphysics' which refers to the spiritual realm etc. As rational metaphysics, science could be made relevant to the enterprise since it is an important source of our knowledge of what the world is like and what it consists in. However, science when deployed in the service of metaphysics no longer remains science as expounded at the object level in terms of individual theories, but could be combined and synthesized in order to create a more general picture of the physical world.

Mohd Hazim Shah

University of Malaya

I think metaphysics follows the science though both have implicit relationship.