Metaphysical
...Nature. Now, if such questions were simply beyond the reach of science to answer then we could argue that the existence and intractability of these questions is evidence for the inadequacy of the scientific method, the falsity of the scientific view', or the incoherence of the beliefs of many scientists. This is not an uncommon argument.
However, metaphysical questions are not simply undecidable in this sense. They are undecidable in a formal mathematical sense. That is, all reasonable answers to a metaphysical question give rise to contradictions within the formal systems of reasoning that give rise to the question. That is to say, metaphysical questions cannot be decided within the system of reasoning used by the person who is asking the question. This is for the same reasons that Gödel-sentences' cannot be decided within the formal systems in which they arise.
What this means is that if it were found to be the case that either answer to a metaphysical question were true or false then this would contradict our reason and call into question our whole notion of logic and illogic, consistency and inconsistency. It would mean that the explanation of our existence contradicts our reason. This presents us with a stark choice of view. We must conclude either that metaphysical questions are formally undecidable or that the true explanation for the existence of our universe contradicts reason.
Therefore, the original defense of natural science, by men like Descartes and Spinoza, was not so much a refutation as a quiet beheading of preceding philosophies. That is, modern science refutes metaphysical questions not by addressing them but by ignoring them. Its view of nature is purely material, devoid of purpose or meaning. As cited by Overby, "Natural science tells us how things work, but not what they are or why they do what they do." (Overby, 2005) It...
View Full Essay
