I know, but read what you wrote.
“If you aren’t doing metaphysics, then you aren’t doing science.”
IOW, “If you are doing metaphysics, then you are doing science”
Sorry, I know it is nitpicking but kinda funny… 
No, that’s an abuse of logic. The opposite is not always true.
Sure religion is doing meta-physics.
And science studies physics, matter and the rules matter follows.
Or would you disagree?
From the rules of science.
Abstract
Science has transformed, if not solved, some metaphysical problems while posing new ones.
Metaphysical ideas such as those of the ancient atomists have sometimes proved helpful in developing new scientific theories.
But the widespread agreement on the empirically grounded progress achieved in science has often been contrasted with what seem to be abstruse and interminable disputes over metaphysical theses.
Karl Popper sought to demarcate scientific from metaphysical and other claims by appealing to their empirical falsifiability, while Rudolf Carnap and other logical positivists dismissed metaphysical claims as cognitively meaningless since they are neither empirically verifiable nor true by virtue of meaning.
This article considers some contemporary views on how science relates to metaphysics only after examining the impact of science on more specific metaphysical issues—composition, identity and individuality, time and change, determinism, causation, laws, probability, and the primacy of fundamental physics.
Okay we have hard science, our physical world, and soft science psychology and such.
Which brings us back to the need to really understand the Physical Reality ~ Human Mind divide.
The Metaphysics of Causation
First published Thu Apr 14, 2022
Consider the following claims:
- The drought caused the famine.
- Drowsy driving causes crashes.
- How much I water my plant influences how tall it grows.
- How much novocaine a patient receives affects how much pain they will feel during dental surgery.
The metaphysics of causation asks questions about what it takes for claims like these to be true—what kind of relation the claims are about, and in virtue of what these relations obtain.
So we are back in the world of the mindscape.
That’s where philosophy steps in.
I’ll let someone who’s a bit of an expert on that area of study take it from here.
Oct 5, 2024 - Sabina Hossenfelder
In which I get very depressed that nothing has changed in 20 years.
I prefer the old fashioned definition of science and being clear on what’s our mind processes and philosophy and what’s hard science, matter, biology, Earth and the natural rules she follows. Then there’s all the beautiful stuff going on within our brains, as we interact with the outside world.
That is a fine distinction, but it’s a real one.
Yes I have and the need to start appreciating the rest of creation out there.
This is about our relationship with what we understand - it about learning to appreciate who we are, and not worrying about figuring out the mind of god or what happened before the Big Bang. You know, first things first.
Even there,
not a mention of the body,
as if the brain were something distinctly on its own.
That is a problem for this new age we have created for ourselves.
That non-existent brain in the vat, that hair splitters lover to fawn over, while forgetting about the rest of our body and biosphere that makes us possible in the first place.
That’s what I’m talking about.
Yeah and airline pilots talk about how many souls on board, what’s your point?
Mind, spirit, soul … are you going to ask me about heaven and hell next, because I used the word soul?
Let me try again:
The physical reality our individual thoughts are embedded within,
that is the universe, Earth, her biosphere, and fellow travelers (flora, fauna).
Are you saying your thoughts are physical?
As for none of that is unreal, haven’t I pointed out that God is as “real” as we want him to be, but he remains a product of the human mind and not a fixture of the physical world. God is a fixture of our mindscape.
How we get to start splitting hairs regarding the meaning of “real”.
Interesting hearing you say that.
Your quote agrees with me.
That you think that is a simple question is the problem.
Now you’re making arguments where there is none.
What’s biology? If you want to argue just to argue, go over to reddit
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:226, topic:10251”]
Sure religion is doing meta-physics.
Yes, but religion is not doing science.
And science studies physics, matter and the rules matter follows.
Or would you disagree?
I disagree with the wording of Lausten’s statement .
As posited it suggests that religion is doing science because it does Meta-physics.
IMO, religion does “spirituality”, which is “meta-physics”, but is not “science”.
That’s your twisting of it. You can easily tell good metaphysics from psuedo-science
But can you tell religion from good metaphysics? That is the question.
That is no twist. It is what you said. That’s why I commented on it.
I know what you meant! But that’s not what you said.
It is what I said. And above, just replace “religion” with “pseudoscience” and that answers your question. They’re the same thing. Theology is pseudoscience.
Little afterthought on this long road. A woman who lives an odd life, but makes a good point; that we’re wired to be inquisitive, to be in conversation about everything, to question everything not as a rule but as an approach. We do it for love and death because we admit they are hard topics, but even then there are many options to adopt answers that are canned.
“It is true,” she says, “that you can view life as a comedy or a tragedy, but I really think that Socrates thought there’s a third possibility. That is, you can refute things. You can investigate them, never settle on an answer. There’s an inquisitive mode of living, in which you’re living your life at the same time as not assuming you know how to live it.”
Makes me think of setting off on my first serious cross-country hitch-hiking trip, Yosemite to Chicago, via the Grand Canyon, and host of facinating characters.
To choose the life examined, as opposed to going down the path everyone tells one to. At first it’s intimidating, scary, but that’s pre-stage jitters, once the trip is underway, it’s all one knows and things seem to work out and we live and learn.
Some people have way too much free time.