• Religion -> Philosophy of Religion

• 0 Comment

Can we separate scientific inquiry from metaphysical assumptions?

Travon Loukes

Well, I think this is a really interesting question. On the one hand, scientific inquiry seems to be driven by a kind of skepticism - the idea that we shouldn't assume things about the world without evidence. On the other hand, metaphysical assumptions are often about the nature of reality itself, and they can be really hard to avoid.

Personally, I tend to think that metaphysical assumptions are kind of inevitable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep them in check. For example, a lot of scientific inquiry is grounded in assumptions about causality - the idea that every effect must have a cause. This assumption is really hard to prove or disprove, but it seems to be a pretty fundamental part of how we think about the world.

But just because we make assumptions like this doesn't mean we can't be rigorous in our scientific inquiry. In fact, acknowledging our assumptions and being explicit about them can actually help us to be more rigorous, because it forces us to ask more pointed questions about what we're actually trying to investigate.

I think it's also worth acknowledging that metaphysical assumptions aren't always static - they can change over time as our understanding of the world evolves. For example, the assumption that everything in the natural world has a purpose was a really common one for a long time, but it's become less and less popular as science has progressed.

At the end of the day, I think the key is to be aware of our assumptions and to be open to the fact that they might need to change as we learn more. That's the essence of scientific inquiry, right? We're always trying to get closer and closer to the truth, but we have to be willing to change our minds along the way.