Wow, I can see why you're so aggravated in here these days. In fact, in light of the Ezekiel/man of sixteen screennames/et al nonsense in here lately, and the fact that you're taking a short leave of absence from astronomy.net, chances are "Luis H" will do the same.
>>>"Metaphysics must come before physics so that you can understand and explain a process going on in nature."
Not true. Metaphysics must come before physics if you need to believe there is an objective explanation already in place before you make sense of the world. Metaphysics is an emotional necessity; it is only required by some.
>>>"If we could observe every element of a theory, then why even look upon an Occam's razor, just check the microscope or telescope to do our checking."
Again, you're equating pure inference with extrapolation and interpolation. The only assumptions we should make are necessary ones. Aside from uniformitarianism, I can see no necessary assumptions in order for science to move forward.
>>>"If we took your reply to its proper implications, then we shouldn't explain anything - just act and react."
These are my reply's "proper" implications?! Nonsense!
If we all held one, collective mind, then science would be unnecessary. However, because living with one another necessitates cooperation, we all must all learn to communicate with one another, and we must establish ways to do so. Science, thus far, has quite arguably been our most successful way to do this.
>>>"Many of these processes are unobservable... We could ignore sense data completely... For example, the best explanation of the solar system was the heliocentric model..."
Tsk tsk! So far your argument is based on a confusion of pure inference with extra/interpolation, metaphysics with physics-yet-to-be-discovered, and a faulty interpretation of my "proper implications! Maybe you should open a scarecrow business – you're quite adept at assembling the straw man! (boo-hiss)
>>>"I think objective truth exists up to the point of the uncertainty principle allows..."
Wait. Isn't there room for a better inference here? Applying Occam's Razor, either (a) a perfect world exists, but it is based upon imperfections, or (b) anthropic types will experience difficulty seeing around their innate, anthropic bias.
>>>"...that we can construct models of the world that can be partially validated by corresponding our model predictions to our observations..."
Our models don't per se mean anything aside from our interpretations of them! And ironically, if you wish to speculate as to how our models do mean something aside from our considerations of them, guess what? Too late! You just invalidated the premise by considering a model independent of sentient consideration!
I bet you've heard/read from those most thoroughly schooled in scientific doctrine that the philosophy of metaphysics is unnecessary and self-serving. Well, instead of simply dismissing metaphysics, I'm attempting to account for its appeal in terms of psychology -- specifically by calling our attention to the anthropomorphic bias.
This, I think, is at least a more considerate deliberation of the issue; simply dismissing metaphysics without more consideration might seem to some philosophers to be indicative of the scientists' disrespect and/or arrogance. It isn't some great "work" of mine, it's just my position in this specific debate.
Harv, I sincerelt feel you're still thinking at a level contingent upon having taken one of two forks in the road; the foundation I seek to examine is why the road is there to begin with. It's very difficult to read through your posts without the continuous undertone of your position -- as if we're arguing which way to go after both having automatically taken the same fork!
"Knowledge? Bah! Just pick what works, and go with it!" ~ Socrates