OK, This might be fun...
John Jones wrote:
Science has been battered by most good philosphers. Scientists don't like to know about this, but rather are content to go on about how stupid religion is, which itself is stupid.
Science has not been battered by philosophers. Quite the contrary.
Our view of the Universe was shaped by philosophy before the scientific revolution (i.e. Kepler, Galileo, Newton etc.) Aristotle laid down a philosophical law of motion which was accepted without question or test and enforced by the Church. Galileo got into trouble for questioning this law of motion.
Under the philosophical view, there was the Earth and the "Heavens". The Earth was the center, and moon, stars and "wanderers" moved around the Earth in perfectly circular orbits.
Before Galileo, the heavens were divine and unreachable. Tell an educated philosopher before Galileo about travelling to the moon (let alone Mars) and you would have been laughed at.
But then the scientists came with their annoying need to question the philosophical axioms, and their nasty habit of using experiments to test assumptions.
Galileo got into big trouble for his assertion (based on observations through a telescope) that there were "moons" orbiting Saturn. Philosophers said that everying revolved around the Earth, and the church considered this heresy (which they enforced quite harshly).
Newton of course totally broke the philosophically derived views of Aristotle.
But the views of Galileo and Newton, the scientists who were willing to question and used experiment and evidence to get the answers, have been victorious. Why? Well very simple, this science based on these ideas put a man on the moon (a ridiculous idea according to tradition philosophy). They are the basis of airplanes and cars and elevators.
The simple fact is that Science provides answers, makes predictions and makes describes the Universe in useful ways better than philosophy ever could.
The last bastion of the traditional religious philosophy is a battle against Darwin. But this battle will be won in the same way... scientists are now using their practitcal knowledge of genetics and evolution to develop new cures, solve crimes and look back into our past.
Let me reiterate from the last thread. Science is very good at answering questions which can be precisely described and tested. There is a large set of questions that Science can't answer-- among these are the meaning of life, questions of morality or the existance of God.
But for the questions that are testable and deal with a concrete part of the Universe, science is the best way to get answers. Questions of how objects move, how life developes, properties of electrons and the nature of time are all scientific questions.
Science is always the best way to answer scientific questions.
Quote:
We map metaphysics onto arithmetic and call it mathematics. Mathematics then feeds back a prediction only when we translate the arithmetic back into the metaphysics as a prediction. It does not follow from a true prediction that the metaphysics of the prediction is found in the arithmetic. It should be intuitively clear that there are no metaphysical entities in arithmetic- neither time nor space are found there. This points to a contradiction in the idea that science is rational (as in arithmetic) and also based on observation (which is of a metaphysics).
Let's apply this to a practical example.
Newton used math to predict that an artificial object could be put into orbit around the Earth indefinitely without the need of any additional energy (except for the small amount that is needed to counteract friction). Furthermore, Newton (based on the results of math derived from experiment which by the way contradicted the philosophers) calculated the speed and the height of these objects.
Several hundred years later, science was proven right and now there are many such artificial objects.
How does this fact relate to your idea of metaphysics especially when Newton's ideas directly contradicted Aristotle (the philosopher).
that's a sweeping assumption about what I believe - and some very bad typing of your own and bad spelling too if we are being critical 
- but you would know this if you read it rather than blindly condemn it and other peoples opinions with a very childish vocabularly and limited imagination and even more limited knowledge.