Science implies that it is already known, Or has physical evidence supporting it. Metaphysics has no such prerequisits. It can be based on pure logic.
Then good luck testing something you don't know... Stop confusing the word "research" with science... That is the point. If it's unknown and testable it's scientific research (or knowledge based research). If it is "known" it is science (definitions mr. Latin). If it is unknown and untestable it is metaphysics. By unknown I mean not represented as fact to the average person.
Depending on the context, "physical" today can include the mountain of technical description and mathematical extrapolation in physics that passes under the radar of "metaphysical" classification. Before possibly this AND the earliest proto- New Agers confused the situation, however, metaphysical or perhaps better un-physical, would have been construed as concerning things not observable as concrete phenomena: Generalizations, concepts; formal frameworks for proceeding with a system or method; principles, laws, overarching rules or forms that regulate the world or that its content seems to conform to. IOW, abstractions that don't correspond to objects of perception or imaginative experiences (apart from symbols or language used to represent them). George Berkeley utilized the latter stance to attack matter as such an inferred generalized entity, supposedly treated by its supporters as more "real" than the observed particular objects it was derived and concluded from. Some contemporary and later empiricists agreed with Berkeley that "stuff" beyond experience was speculative mumbo-jumbo, but likewise trashed Berkeley's own immaterialism, a monism where the principle "stuff" was mind. Hume held that even "mind" seemed to only be a bundle of impressions, so mind was merely another interpretative inference. His mitigated skepticism, where materialism and mathematical formulations at least offered practical results, was perhaps later clarified by John Stuart Mill's phenomenalism: Matter, then, may be defined, a Permanent Possibility of Sensation. If I am asked, whether I believe in matter, I ask whether the questioner accepts this definition of it. If he does, I believe in matter: and so do all Berkeleians. In any other sense than this, I do not. But I affirm with confidence, that this conception of Matter includes the whole meaning attached to it by the common world, apart from philosophical, and sometimes from theological, theories. The reliance of mankind on the real existence of visible and tangible objects, means reliance on the reality and permanence of Possibilities of visual and tactile sensations, when no such sensations are actually experienced. --An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy Add to this Ernst Mach's integrating something akin to this in positivism, which Lenin described here circa 1908, in the course of attacking Marxist dialectical materialists that had strayed into "empiro-criticism": I shall refer to those arguments by which materialism is being combated by . . . . Machians. I shall use this latter term throughout as a synonym for "empirio-criticist" because it is shorter and simpler and has already acquired rights of citizenship in Russian literature. That Ernst Mach is the most popular representative of empirio-criticism today is universally acknowledged in philosophical literature . . . . The materialists, we are told, recognise something unthinkable and unknowable -- "things-in-themselves" -- matter "outside of experience" and outside of our knowledge. They lapse into genuine mysticism by admitting the existence of something beyond, something transcending the bounds of "experience" and knowledge. When they say that matter, by acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensations, the materialists take as their basis the "unknown," nothingness; for do they not themselves declare our sensations to be the only source of knowledge? The materialists lapse into "Kantianism" (Plekhanov, by recognising the existence of "things-in-themselves," i.e., things outside of our consciousness); they "double" the world and preach "dualism," for the materialists hold that beyond the appearance there is the thing-in-itself; beyond the immediate sense data there is something else, some fetish, an "idol," an absolute, a source of "metaphysics," a double of religion ("holy matter," as Bazarov says). Such are the arguments levelled by the Machians against materialism, as repeated and retold in varying keys by the afore-mentioned writers. --Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
True... But metaphysics doesn't. For instance in this thread I can say stuff like, "If we were to take one of every element and place them in the same area the object would define omnipotence." And have it be true just by any stretch of the imagination. But in science we would have to have some sort of fact to base this assumption off of.
In other words you just argued against yourself. Wrong again. But thanks for the belated Christmas present. All the extra time I'll get now you're on my ignore list.
That is an expression meaning "the people who study and practice science recognize...". I'll be more explicit in the future as I would hate to have you think that a man-made process somehow magically became sapient. I undestand what you are saying. Now let me give you a reason: http://www.cms.edu/descrip.html Take a look at google and see what type of "Metaphysics" careers people are engaged in. You will see a lot more of what the link above shows. What does it mean? Well, for starters, the Metaphysics you are referring to has morphed over time and what you are seeing is the current result (which is pure woo). I suspect the reason for this is because your version of Metaphysics doesn't presently contribute to humanity other than as a method to get people thinking; however, real hard sciences branched off of philosophy some time ago and result in careers and works that frankly dwarf anything that your version of Metaphysics might ever be able to do. Unfortunately for uneducated people, your version of Metaphysics is very easy to understand compared to a hard science so it's easier to latch onto it. We have a much better system now that actually produces phenomenal results. It's called "science".
It sounds as if you're suggesting that "pure woo" contributes more to humanity than academic metaphysics does. If that interpretation of your post is correct, what do you mean by it? That is a very dubious assertion. http://consc.net/people.html#meta
Academic metaphysics? Ha. It is not something you can truly teach in a classroom. It is something "you" feel that is not physical. A feeling of this world and shared by many, yet unfounded in any other nature. An archaic method of providing comfort in ones life at all times. Another word for imagination... Sure you can teach it's history, but the words have changed in disgust as the ideas have remained.
Now you're doing metametaphysics, which is, of course, another field in which there are working academics. (Unless you're doing woo, that is.)
It is an archaic method of determining our "material" beliefs. Which distinguishes it from philosophy by dealing more with our place in nature than the " how to lead a good life " tongue and cheek motto made by most philosophers. And departs from physics by not being defined by certain laws. (by certain I mean laws made with certainty as opposed to the exclusional basis for the word) Commonly most people are capable of a certain imagination, most just don't know when it floats into such a large word as metaphysics. Especially with no real decent explanations to guide the authors intent on such a word in this day.
It produces services that people are willing to dump money into. Granted, they are purely psychological in nature (much like religion), but it is a cash flow. Try reading any of those works and then any of these works: http://arxiv.org/ Which works are significantly easier for someone with a high school education to understand?
And it depends on mathematics e.g. QM heavily depends on statistics and mathematics in turn is a subset of logic and vice-versa I do agree with you.
Look metaphysics is different , from physics physics looks at the things that are observable observe the night sky metaphysics looks at the things that are not observable life lifes energy
