The aura of parapsychology? Well where is any evidence of such aura there's evidence of ESP though and what does aura have to do with metaphysics?
so science can't see , hasn't detected this energy , this aura around people some people can see this aura though
It's not as significant as ESP that much I can tell because evidence for it isn't that strong either.
at least not yet aura , biological energy form and esp a form of communication between living things lets hope that this knowledge is not abused
I dont know, but the question is tangential, in either case uneducated people will not find articles about metaphysics very easy to understand.
Great, even if it is true that "my version of Metaphysics" (which is actually the standard academic view) only contributes to humanity by getting people to think, then metaphysics still has a lot to contribute to humanity. You can't really do "hard sciences"/ empirical science without some sort of metaphysics. Besides, metaphysics isn't an empirical science, it's not meant to result in the wonderful careers and works associated with the empirical sciences. This does of course not imply that it does not play a positive role towards understanding and knowledge. That is a strange thing to say. as pointed out, one cannot engage in any metaphysics without being informed by the real sciences as well as the rational sciences. Aquinas described metaphysics as the science one studies after having mastered the sciences that deal with the physical world. To my mind, to engage in proper metaphysics one has to be educated in the empirical sciences first, at least. You probably mean "empirical science". Yes, empirical science is wonderful, great, awesome etc. Don't confuse "scientiae reales" with "scientia rationalis". Each domain of sciences contributes towards knowledge in its own manner.
How is your version of Metaphysics presently contributing to humanity? I don't know. I know many science professionals who have not had 30 seconds of Metaphysics training. Ok, what is its role presently? I don't see it anywhere (aside from crank implementations). This thread is about the scope of metaphysics and what I am seeing is that your version of it doesn't have any objective scope beyond encouraging someone to think; however, there are many other methods of encouraging someone to think that are successfully utilized. That would seem to contradict your assertion: "You can't really do "hard sciences"/ empirical science without some sort of metaphysics.". I do however understand what you are saying. Humans tend to ask a massive amount of subjective questions but think they are objective (ex. "why are we here?"). Having a good scientific knowledge base would constrain the the subjective questioning to a certain degree (i.e. it would weed out a lot of stupid questions); however, I have not seen evidence that most science oriented people cannot do this already without some kind of Metaphysics training. I am not seeing any real knowledge contributions from your version of Metaphysics. I don't think it really has any scope beyond thinking encouragement.
Are you a realist about space-time as a four dimensional manifold? or do you think that this is no more than a mathematical framework?
How about this thought. In order to exist you must be alive. In order to grow out of nothing there must be some form of consciousness present. Seems like it falls under metaphysics to me...
My version? Like I said, it is the standard version. Firstly, like you said it gets people to think about fundamental causes of being, reality etc. Secondly, in the area of time, the B-theory of time have been demonstrated to be compatible with 4-Dimensionalism. Logic and metaphysics has pretty much saw to the downfall of logical positivism. In quantum physics, metaphysics plays an important role in trying to make sense of empirical observations. Many world interpretations for example are essentially metaphysical views to accommodate the empirical results in a coherent manner. There are just a few ways in which metaphysics can and have contributed. To be fair, I did not say empirical science professionals need metaphysical training to do science. What I am trying to say is that (as per the OP), we all have our metaphysical views or first philosophies, including empirical science professionals. This may not be apparent at first but as soon as people attempt to answer questions such as “what is your view of the concept of matter?” or “do you think time is real or just an intellectual abstraction of change?” or “are you a realist?” or “is free will compatible with determinism?” or "what is the relationship between cause and effect?” etc.then their philosophia prima becomes recognizable. Wiki may help I suppose. You are right, that does appear to contradict what I was saying earlier. What I am trying to to say is: 1) We all have our metaphysical views or first philosophies. Our views of change, of time, of matter, of identity etc. 2) Not everybody may be fully aware or take note of these views, they may be taken for granted, but these certainly do contribute to every empirical scientist's view of reality. Without these basic first philosophies of reality, any research is impossible. 3) It is not bad to have first philosophies, in fact it appears to be quite natural. However, one cannot engage (and by this I am mean do proper metaphysics or have a proper first philosophy) in any metaphysics without being informed by the real sciences as well as the rational sciences. And of course one has to study a little about what other philosophers and educated people said about various metaphysical themes for example time, change, matter, identity, substance, contingency, necessity etc. Hope this clears it up a little.
You do make a valid point that science evolved from metaphysics and has produced great results economically and practically. But let us not forget that science arose from metaphysical inquiries. Science has to be discovered, and it frequently originates from intuition, curiosity, and accident. Metaphysics not only gives rise to science, it also gives rise to methods for exploring feelings, perceptions, thinking processes, morality, and numerous important aspects of life. And let us not forget that pure woo also generates economic and practical results. Metaphysics is here today, along side science, because it is useful and practical. For some things, yes, science is a good system, but not all things. Try to make sense out of a relative's suicide by using science. Here is something important to consider about science, which demonstrates its limits and weakness. Just as a television screen projects a three dimensional reality (area time) to our four dimensional existence (space time), there is sufficient evidence to suggest our four dimensional space time exists in an even greater five dimensional coordinate system. Science in a four dimensional realm requires a metaphysical approach to understanding events in a five dimensional realm. Since we do not physically exist in a five dimensional realm and all our practical physics is explained in a four dimensional reference system, it requires metaphysical talents to understand that which is beyond our perception. Be careful not to be too dismissive of metaphysics as it still can reveal more science, which is yet unknown.
Knapsack of the Metaphysicians. - Those who boast so mightily of the scientificality of their metaphysics should receive no answer; it is enough to pluck at the bundle which, with a certain degree of embarrassment, they keep concealed behind their back; if one succeeds in opening it, the products of that scientificality come to light, attended by their blushes: a dear little Lord God, a nice little immortality, perhaps a certain quantity of spiritualism, and in any event a whole tangled heap of 'wretched poor sinner' and Pharisee arrogance. -Nietzsche Damn... I kinda wish I had found that warning before I tried my metaphysics in physics...
