(urth) Christian relativity - in which I mangle philosophy ofscience

[Chris]

To say that metaphysics is "generally empirically underdetermined" bothers 
me a little bit, although it may - I am not sure - be perfectly true. It 
seems to imply that one arrives at metaphysical conclusions by means of 
empirical investigation, but the metaphysical premises are always there, as 
it were, ahead of time. I may be grossly mistaken but when I see modern 
attempts to work out a metaphysics compatible with modern science, it seems 
to me that mostly what is going on is that they're showing a given set of 
metaphysical premises aren't mutually compatible and then making some 
suggestions as to which ones should be thrown out. But the empirical 
investigation itself gets started on the basis of some metaphysical 
standpoint or other.

>Oh, I know :).  I specialise in quantum field theory.  I think that I 
>didn't
>quite say what I wanted to say there.  This might be more close to the
>intent (or perhaps not).
>
>The metaphysic that's generally taken to be implied by relativity at 
>present
>isn't necessarily the one that should be taken to apply in the future
>(though one can't actually say what that would be), since metaphysics is
>generally empirically underdetermined.  For example, based on the Stanford
>Encyclopaedia of Philosopy entry on the subject (don't have time to dig up
>the link at the moment; sorry) there's a form of Presentism (the idea that
>Now exists, to butcher the idea slightly) that's compatible with it despite
>it being usually taken that Eternalism  (Now doesn't exist) is 'proved' by
>SR.
>
>I _could_ also mutter 'underdetermination of _theory_ by experimental 
>data',
>but there might be a general outcry of 'anti-science reletavist' and I'd
>have my liscence to practise physics revoked! :D
>
> >There's also no need to restrict news of the Christian Gospel to
> >post-crucifixion time in religious thought; Christ not only shares in the
> >eternal quality of Gd, but was personally present at the Creation and it
> >was only His mortal incarnation for the benefit of the earth that began 
>in
> >Bethlehem. The Scriptures is silent on whether there are any
> >extraterrestrial sinners in need of salvation; if their existence can be
> >reconciled, so can other appearances of Christ, and they would no more
> >violate relativity than the Hubble expansion does.
>
>Quite.   I'm also intrigued by the idea that Dawkins is not only an
>authority on biology and theology (he isn't on the latter, though himself
>and many who read him seem to think so) but on theoretical physics.  Not
>that he says anything obviously incorrect in the quoted passage...
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Urth Mailing List
>To post, write urth at urth.net
>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net