Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 Our epistemology, also, cannot but presuppose a certain metaphysic. 

To channel Van Til, "the unbeliever can count, but he cannot account for counting." This applies to all scientific endeavor.
▲ ▼
freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +2 
 ...and, our ability to do physics relies on an objectively real world and objectively real natural systems and processes--whose persistence itself relies on its Creator and his promise to keep it going that way (at least for a while longer).
▲ ▼
Michael J | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Agreed.  The distinction I'd make from here is that those foundational epistemological axioms don't necessarily require an *explicit* metaphysics, even if they require an implicit one.

The physicist takes as axiomatic, explicitly or implicitly, that reality is consistent, that it is knowable (at least in part), and that physical matter is a relevant object of study.  Those axioms are, it would seem, sufficient for the scientific method.

Under those axioms, metaphysical truths remain in a numinous realm beyond our ability to study.  One might admit those metaphysical presuppositions are necessary for doing physical science while not admitting them as relevant objects of study.

Thus, like any logical system, science needs axioms to get going, but that is an implicit metaphysics; science may remain agnostic about other metaphysical pursuits.