Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Friedman, Michael L en_US
dc.contributor.advisor Koertge, Noretta en_US
dc.contributor.author Abidin, Zainal en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2010-05-21T17:16:51Z
dc.date.available 2010-05-24T20:45:53Z
dc.date.available 2027-01-21T18:16:52Z
dc.date.issued 2010-05-21T17:16:51Z
dc.date.submitted 2005 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2022/6959
dc.description Thesis (PhD) - Indiana University, History and Philosophy of Science, 2005 en_US
dc.description.abstract Traditionally, knowledge of nature as it really is belonged to the realm of metaphysics. With the rise of empirical sciences in the seventeenth century, and Logical Positivism in the twentieth century, metaphysics as an a priori knowledge had gradually lost its credibility, to be replaced by the sciences. Recently, however, there are ideas of constructing metaphysics that is somehow grounded on science (e.g. experimental metaphysics, metaphysical naturalism, and certain forms of constructive theology as discussed in recent science and religion discourse). The main question addressed in this dissertation concerns the possibility of such metaphysics. Science can be relevant to metaphysics only if one believes it to have significant things to say about the world; in other words, only if one holds some form of scientific realism. In this dissertation the author argues for the metaphysical ambiguity of scientific theories. This claim can be divided into two sub-claims: 1) That a modest version of scientific realism can be defended, which justifies the belief that scientific theories speak about the world, but 2) what precisely the world is like as presented by the theories is not fully-determined. A metaphysical system can be constructed only through the process of interpretation, in which the function of the theories is more in the direction of putting constraints on possible metaphysical interpretation of them. Another related conclusion is that some theories are more readily interpretable compared to others. In the final part of the dissertation an illustration is given, which is drawn from recent discourse on science and theology. This illustration of an attempt to ground a (philosophical) theology on science shows how the above conclusions apply to this case. en_US
dc.language.iso EN en_US
dc.publisher [Bloomington, Ind.] : Indiana University en_US
dc.rights This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported license. en_US
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ en_US
dc.subject theology en_US
dc.subject Bas van Fraassen en_US
dc.subject Ernan McMullin en_US
dc.subject interpretation en_US
dc.subject scientific realism en_US
dc.subject metaphysics en_US
dc.subject.classification Philosophy en_US
dc.subject.classification Religion, General en_US
dc.subject.classification History of Science en_US
dc.title Science and Metaphysics: A Methodological Investigation en_US
dc.type Doctoral Dissertation en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported license. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported license.

Search IUScholarWorks


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Statistics