Perhaps it is ultimately not the end result that matters most but the way you must go to get there.
I like that view. I doubt there even is such a thing as an ultimate answer.

Q: what is the purpose of the universe?
A: answering the above question.

... I believe philosophy as a whole serves not to provide solutions, but to continually refine the questions we ask at the most fundamental levels...

I believe philosophy as a whole serves not to provide solutions, but to continually refine the questions we ask at the most fundamental levels. Science plays its part to provide what may be considered "definite answers."

... to throw some brighter illumination upon the strong interdependence between science and metaphysics:

- without metaphysics, science would spin around in a static space, attaining greater and greater levels of detail but getting nowhere, eventually collapsing under the revealed inconsistencies within itself

without science, metaphysics would continue to build upon ungrounded ideas, floating farther and farther away from any ties to this world

- metaphysics is the armchair hypothesizing scientists do before diving into experiment; experimental results are food for the armchair hypothesizing of metaphysicists

-metaphysics is where scientists go when science isn't making sense - it's the very stuff of which scientific paradigm shifts are made;

science is where metaphysicists go when metaphysics isn't making sense - it's the very stuff of which metaphysical paradigm shifts are made

Does the above hold true for all metaphysicists? for all scientists? ... no ... there are metaphysicists who disregard science; as there are scientists who disregard philosophy ... but this reminds me of a phrase I happened upon once to the effect that "the world's greatest scientists have also been philosophers".

I have to disagree with you here, Paul. As far as I can tell, science does proceed without metaphysical speculation for the most part without going "nowhere". Perhaps I don't understand exactly what you mean by "metaphysics" in relation to science, or what you mean by "getting nowhere" though.

Again, perhaps I don't know quite what you mean by metaphysics here, but my understanding is that the entire point of metaphysics is to engage in thought that floats away from (direct) ties to this world.

I don't see it this way, but perhaps if you could explain a more specific example(s), I could better understand your perspective.

I think this would speak more to the practical reliability of science than to value or validity of metaphysics.

In a historic sense, science is a branch of philosophy, and many of the greatest "scientists" of history weren't called scientists b/c it's a relatively recent phenomenon to do so. They would have been considered philosophers because all structured, critical thought was considered philosophy, regardless of specific subject matter, and anyone partaking in such thought would therefore be called a philosopher. "Natural philosophy" was the title of the line of thought that people we now think of as "scientists", such as Galileo and Newton, were pursuing when they were alive.

Also, in regards to the quote you provide, all "metaphysicists" are philosophers, but not all philosophers are metaphysicists, so the quote can be considered accurate without lending any credence to the idea that metaphysics helps to guide modern science.

... it could be that my first mistake was trusting Wikipedia: "Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy investigating principles of reality transcending those of any science" ...

I am sure many of you have heard the historical attacks (critiques, rather) on metaphysics as a philosophical study: it has run its course and has been displaced by the proper branches of science, and by some definitions of the term it is ultimately a "study of the occult," meant for dreamers.

So, what do you think of these matters?

... I think that the term metaphysics has been bastardized by some of the weird new age syncretism floating around that distorts the foundational beliefs...

Thank you, sarek, you took the words out of my mouth :bigsmile:. I believe philosophy as a whole serves not to provide solutions, but to continually refine the questions we ask at the most fundamental levels. Science plays its part to provide what may be considered "definite answers."

In a way it is almost like the Buddhist koans, they are there simply to make one think and ponder - to stretch the mind.

Where would we all be now if we had all the answers to all those big life questions?

Jgweed, phenomenology is not only in direct opposition to metaphysics, but it truly dismisses it. Husserl, Heiddeger, Sartre, etc, were interested in the individual experience. NOT the fundamental, generalizable nature of being as would be central in metaphysics. That part they basically took for granted. So I've always regarded the phenomenological discussions of being by the existentialists as anti-metaphysical, perhaps even the greatest of all rejections of metaphysics.