Scientists may say 'nature' as the term is commonly used is not a metaphysics. They're wrong, however unlike other metaphysics it's just a non-anthropocentric, unadorned, undogmatic (mostly, supposedly), empirically-based metaphysics.
Scientific understanding of 'nature' is mostly unchanged from Aristotle, except that science has removed Aristotle's rich teleological phenomenology, which it finds redundant.
Scientists can certainly work with nature without Aristotle's enhanced meanings, but they often assign nature more meaning than they admit. Scientists such as Richard Dawkins often aestheticize and spiritualise 'nature'. They may also assign a weak or strong teleology and other attributes - though, unlike other metaphysicians, most scientists would recognise these as human projections if you challenged them.
Scientific understanding of 'nature' is mostly unchanged from Aristotle, except that science has removed Aristotle's rich teleological phenomenology, which it finds redundant.
Scientists can certainly work with nature without Aristotle's enhanced meanings, but they often assign nature more meaning than they admit. Scientists such as Richard Dawkins often aestheticize and spiritualise 'nature'. They may also assign a weak or strong teleology and other attributes - though, unlike other metaphysicians, most scientists would recognise these as human projections if you challenged them.
Comments
Post a Comment