Not proper metaphysics.
Whatever the empirical 'facts' are, the nature of those facts would still be an open question.
I guess it depends on what you mean by metaphysics.
Some people use the fact that metaphysics isn't experiment based as an excuse to treat it like a wishy washy 'anything goes' exercise, but if you read the proper stuff then there's genuine reason there.

It does seem that you give the point a headstart in the wrong direction as soon as you bring metaphysics as a means of "proving" something in to a conversation.  But then again, ill take Mental Masturbation sans the Mental in most cases.

Yes.

For my part, I've long since gotten used to the idea that you and I just use words differently.

 

"Metaphysics" is a very broad term that's unfortunately used as an umbrella term by some these days to include everything that isn't science or mainstream religion, including speculative fiction, the occult, divination, etc. 

But in the academic sense it's far more concrete and specific.  Take ontology for example.  It's arguably the most worthy philosophical branch of all (at least for continental philosophers), especially after the advent of Heidegger's Being and Time. 

Most laymen think metaphysics simply means "beyond physics", and because of that dismiss it as some sort of folk superstition that is opposed to science, but in reality the physicians and the metaphysicians were the same people at the genesis of the whole thing.  as with most things, knowledge increased so exponentially that people became specialists. 

And so on and so forth.  But it's definitely more nuanced than simply "beyond physics".  Remember that metaphysics is a term that was coined by pagans many centuries before the birth of Christ. 

Even philosophers of mind such as Daniel Dennett work in the field of metaphysics.  Very little metaphysics seeks out what you seem to think it does. 

The most important characteristics of metaphysics as I know it, it's a practical usage of it in a real life.  While the information sources may be transcendental or controversial, by unbiased testing them in practice there may be found an useful principle. Then this principle may be further researched and purged of superstitious and occult ballast.

I had a teacher, who is a total atheist, scepticist, very educated in various sciences, philosophies and even eastern healing techiques, fan of Richard Dawkins, and so on. You would LOVE him here.
In one of our discussions, he described me his experiences with dowsing. He could just a tear a twig from a nearest tree and find an underground water stream. The twig was like a caught by a great force, strongly bending to a ground. He even successfully taught it his very young dauther. Well, I was quite surprised to see such a great rational scepticist to practice the water searching. I tried to play a sceptic for a while, and asked him, how this is possible. He held the twig in the air, and between him and the water were meters of ground, air, even beton sometimes, and yet, there was a very strong force sensible. I argued, how such a transmission of power is possible, while the twig is not actually dipped in the water stream, so there can be no mechanical affection. He said something about an force induction, I know there are inductive flowmeters. I argued that the water and the wooden twig are completely non-magnetic materials (and as we know, the flowmeter meters an electrical induction by water flow, it isn't affected by a mechanical force of its movement). He then speculated, that there must be a medium, which transmits the force, a medium independent on the meters of soil, dividing the dowsing rod and the water stream. But why the medium connects only a water and a dowsing stick, independently if it's wooden or metallic? And why it does so only when a trained human is holding it? How can be such a medium scientifically measured? Is it possible, that this assumed medium can transmit also different kinds of energy, than just mechanical? Or are these more mediums for various energies? You see, it raised a heap of questions and the conversation got to really unscientific area, where we were not able to proceed, he because he's deeply sceptic, and I, because I played a sceptic for a while.
The verdict is, that scepticism must be sometimes temporarily shut off, and used only when the theory is ready to be tested. It is like you can't expose an unfinished photography to a full light, before it develops in a photographic liquid and dries off.

I love this statement. I had to read it a second time before it made me chuckle.

That's quite ironic as Dawkins actually showed an experiment on this 'enemies of reason' that showed that dowsing was as accurate as guessing.

Agreed. Although I am open to a possibility that might vindicate dousing as 'working', even though there's no supernatural force involved.
There's much more to our mind/brain than what we consciously perceive.
We experience what we're conscious of, but at the same time our mind/brain is running countless operations that we are not conscious off.
E.g. an idea can come out of nowhere - an idea that our unconscious brain processes have been develloping and then finally passes to the conscious mind in a completed form.

It might be that the moving of the stick, or the 'force' that our arms feel, might be some kind of instinctual twitch triggered by the right kind of sense data - i.e. subtle clues that water is around.
So the 'force' on the stick might be the result of the unconscious mind recognising subtle clues in the area that suggest the water could be around.
That's why I don't like to discourage so called 'irriational practices' as although they clearly don't work as the adherents claim, they contain incredible clues to facts about our human nature and I think that people do genuinely learn real things from them, even if they don't really realise themselves what it is they have learned.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

This is why the double-blind method is so important. It eliminates the need for a skeptical or non-skeptical attitude. It takes "attitude" or bias out of the equation, and (as you also said) reduces the possibility of inaccurate conclusions.

The difference between science and metaphysics is, that metaphysics is used to work with objects, therms, tools, techniques, possibilites and for purposes, which are not even defined in science, and often not recognized as possible, acceptable or simply not recognized, in most of the society. These therms may be vaguely known to originate from some religional, philosophic or occult sources, but it's mostly a technical jargon, a literately understanding them is unprecise, or totally wrong.

If I try to use an example from a life, if someone very suddenly feels strangely (like a sudden change of personality, for example), then a metaphysicist can contact a helpful person, capable of some form of transcendental contact, and try to find out, if the ill person is or isn't affected by an outside source, if yes, then how the outside source can be dealt with. Normal people just says to take some pills, without knowing a real cause.
Another example is a sense of life. For everyone rationally thinking, it's a mythical thing, which is impossible to find out, or there is none, or that just we give our life a sense. For a metaphysicist, it's a complex thing. A humanity or life as such has a different purpose than nations, and individuals. An individual may be intuitively conscious of his/her life sense, or not. If not sure, there are possible ways how to find it out, because every life takes a place and time in appropriate circumstances to achieve its sense, so with some additional knowledge and skills, it can be for example, derived from the circumstances. A knowledge of an individual life sense allows to expect and solve problems of life as they are coming. To live means to have a problems, and when an individual can recognize and solve them quickly, they don't overgrow and overwhelm the individual, thus the life is much easier and productive. Metaphysics is a "science" of giving a life more of a quality, making it happier, giving it more sense.
There is a lot of other things going on there, which even cross the border of science, but the life development is the purpose here, so a human being has the priority, not arguing between science and metaphysics.

People here describe themselves as atheists (without God), theists (with religional God), deists (with some God) and agnostics (without knowledge). I would describe myself as gnostic. (Except that I have some objections to the related English wikipedia article)

Is there a mod or site admin who can change LosingStreak's tag to "Greatest Theist Ever"? "Theist" really doesn't cut it.

Oh stop with the self-deprecation. You're killing in here. You had Marty stammering for an answer a couple of times, and he's a deep, no-nonsense believer of imaginary crap.

We really need to make up a metacalculus. Something with alpha and omega, so the Christians can have fun with it.

J = A + Ω

But A is the "beginning", and Ω the "end". Obviously, we're going to need meta-set theory. Hmm ...

Oh, sorry to make it seem like I was laughing at you - you made an accidental joke. Is English your second (or third or fourth) language? A "physician" is a medical doctor, so with "metaphysician" you made a pun by accident. It was actually pretty funny.

(Also, it's no comment on your ability to write English, which is much better than my ability to write in any language other than English)

Does anyone know that "metaphysics" in Greek  means "after the physics?" When Aristotle wrote his book, he couldn't think of a name for that chapter. It came after the chapter "Physics" so that's where the name came from. Actually it was the Greek word for metaphyisics that meant "after physics," but you get the idea.

Man. Boy, do I ever feel stupid, with my five Russian words, and a handful of German. "Vo ist der VC?" Like I could understand the response.

Will's joke was funny. Trust me. And he's the only person on this entire website that you can trust to not be mean, or to insult you.

Your english is excellent. Better than many native speakers who come here.

 

I would add that any subject that starts with "post-modern" falls into the same category.