The first question we should face is:
What is the aim of a physical theory?
To this question diverse answers have been made, but all of them may be reduced to two main principles:
"A physical theory," certain logicians have replied, "has for its object the explanation of a group of laws experimentally established."

"A physical theory," other thinkers have said, "is an abstract system whose aim is to summarize and classify logically a group of experimental laws without claiming to explain these laws...

Now these two questions — Does there exist a material reality distinct from sensible appearances? and What is the nature of reality? — do not have their source in experimental method, which is acquainted only with sensible appearances and can discover nothing beyond them. The resolution of these questions transcends the methods used by physics; it is the object of metaphysics.

Therefore, if the aim of physical theories is to explain experimental laws, theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics...

Now, to make physical theories depend on metaphysics is surely not the way to let them enjoy the privilege of universal consent."

Pierre Maurice Marie Duhem, translated by Philip P. Wiener (1991). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton University Press. p. 10. ISBN 069102524X.

We just added another scientist to the group. Has a PhD in chemistry 1999 from Penn State University.

When you say you just added another scientist to our group. What group are you talking about? Those who believe physics isn't an "autonomous science"? Well count me in!
But in fact, does the opposite group, that which supports the idea that physics is free of philosophical underpinnings, have any valid support? I don't think anyone can argue that point without eventually realizing their mistake.

In any case, can you point me toward a field of intellectual inquiry that can justifiably be called an "autonomous science" by the definition you have given? That is to say, one that has no philosophical premise?
Every form of intellectual inquiry presupposes a model for the recollection and organization of evidence and the structuring and comparing of the resulting arguments. Every form of intellectual inquiry previously defines what constitutes "evidence" and the axiomatic rules by which this evidence and the resulting arguments can be evaluated to be either valid or invalid.

It isn't always explicitly, intelligently or deliberately done, but it must be done before any meaningful inquiry can be accomplished. If you have no way to form an inquiry, model an argument, or you are unsure as to what constitutes evidence for those arguments, at most all you are doing is randomly sampling thoughts and experiences without forming a coherent understanding in the process.

...Is the implication that physics is no better than, say, theology? That's not really a valid comparison, is it? Each has their field of inquiry, and each should be kept within the bounds of its field in order to remain valid models of inquiry. It's meaningless to apply theology as a model for explaining physical phenomena, just as it is meaningless to apply physics as a model for interpreting a specific religious text. If you do wish to apply a model to a new field of inquiry, you have to first prove that its premises validly allow it to ask meaningful questions and form reasonable answers within said field.

...Are you saying that physics is just philosophy? As I see it physics is to philosophy as calculus is to algebra. They're both based on the same consistent principles, and one is based on the other; but they have different purposes and one is better suited to explain certain things, because that's what it was made for. Is it possible there's a better way to inquire into the nature of reality? Certainly, but the only way we'll ever know if our current model is insufficient is if it's proven logically, or if our inquiry results in findings we can't adequately explain through the current model. In other words, let's keep using physics until we break it, and then ask why it broke.

...Is your point that physics shouldn't be used to inquire into morality or spirituality? If that's your argument, I definitely agree.

Therefore, if the aim of physical theories is to explain experimental laws, theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics...

I've always thought that science was subordinate to philosophy. Or at least under the umbrella of philosophy. The philosophy of science.

the thread title

Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics...

contains

Theoretical physics is subordinate to metaphysics...

from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change.” It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, and for two reasons.

subordinate

subordinate
adjective
adjective: subordinate
səˈbɔːdɪnət/

1.
lower in rank or position.
"his subordinate officers"
synonyms: lower-ranking, junior, lower, lesser, inferior, lowly, minor, supporting; More
second-fiddle
"she kept her distance from subordinate staff"
antonyms: superior, senior
of less or secondary importance.
"in adventure stories, character must be subordinate to action"
synonyms: secondary, lesser, minor, subsidiary, subservient, ancillary, auxiliary, attendant, peripheral, marginal, of little account/importance; More
second-class, second-rate, second-fiddle;
supplementary, accessory, additional, extra
"a subordinate rule"
antonyms: central, major, chief

noun
noun: subordinate; plural noun: subordinates
səˈbɔːdɪnət/

1.
a person under the authority or control of another within an organization.
"he was mild-mannered, especially with his subordinates"
synonyms: junior, assistant, second, second in command, number two, right-hand man/woman, deputy, aide, adjutant, subaltern, apprentice, underling, flunkey, minion, lackey, mate, inferior; More
informalsidekick, henchman, second fiddle, man/girl Friday
"the manager and his or her subordinate jointly review performance"
antonyms: superior, senior

verb
verb: subordinate; 3rd person present: subordinates; past tense: subordinated; past participle: subordinated; gerund or present participle: subordinating
səˈbɔːdɪneɪt/

1.
treat or regard as of lesser importance than something else.
"practical considerations were subordinated to political expediency"
make subservient to or dependent on something else.
"to define life would be to subordinate it to reason"

Origin

now theoretical physics

Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena.

you see how this thread title is frustrating.

it reads

a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena is lower in rank or position than metaphysics, It is not easy to say what metaphysics is.

subordinate in which mind? subordinate is a very onerous concept, a very "christian" word, military, authoritarian, it makes me think of monarchs, priesthoods and submission to the tyranny of monied fools.

but i must say i am looking forward to the initial release of the group stahwre.

What is the aim of a physical theory? To this question diverse answers have been made, but all of them may be reduced to two main principles:
"A physical theory," certain logicians have replied, "has for its object the explanation of a group of laws experimentally established."
"A physical theory," other thinkers have said, "is an abstract system whose aim is to summarize and classify logically a group of experimental laws without claiming to explain these laws...

Wrong - the aim of physics is not to explain, summarize, or classify a group of "laws"! Take the theory called the standard model of particle physics - it is a model that does not explain all experimental results and is subject to change; it is not a group of laws.

A bit of context: the date of the translation up top is misleading, the book was actually written in 1906.

I'm also looking forward to the report from stahwre's group, but with waning enthusiasm. If this thread is any example - is this "physics is subordinate to metaphysics" really supposed to be a compelling argument?

Oh, so this is an actual group, and you're going to publish something. Sorry for assuming you where using the expression, "our group" metaphorically.
That actually gives this whole thread a different meaning. That's great news stahrwe. I'll be on the lookout for your publication. Best of luck.

Can I ask what the purpose of the group is, and on what they're reporting?

While this post included an update on the group it is not related to the focus of the group per se.

The group will show how atheist celebrities violate the fundamental principles of logic.

LanDroid wrote:

What is the aim of a physical theory? To this question diverse answers have been made, but all of them may be reduced to two main principles:
"A physical theory," certain logicians have replied, "has for its object the explanation of a group of laws experimentally established."
"A physical theory," other thinkers have said, "is an abstract system whose aim is to summarize and classify logically a group of experimental laws without claiming to explain these laws...

Wrong - the aim of physics is not to explain, summarize, or classify a group of "laws"! Take the theory called the standard model of particle physics - it is a model that does not explain all experimental results and is subject to change; it is not a group of laws.

A bit of context: the date of the translation up top is misleading, the book was actually written in 1906.

I'm also looking forward to the report from stahwre's group, but with waning enthusiasm. If this thread is any example - is this "physics is subordinate to metaphysics" really supposed to be a compelling argument?

I hate to admit it, but I agree with nearly everything said above.
I'd say to make the distinction clear, quantum physics, in my opinion. toes the line considerably when speaking of philosophy and metaphysics. It's an overt admission by several prominent theoretical physicists.
QP is also highly counter intuitive. "Logic" essentially goes out of the window in the QP realm.

"Atheist Celebrities" is a good way of putting it.

Because of the recent flood of books which implicitly promote the worldview of atheism, atheism itself is in fashion for the moment. More accurately, it is the admissions taken from poll data that claim people are 1) steering away from organized religion, 2) are not traditionally religious, and 3) no longer wish to identify with any particular mainstream religion.This is not the same as saying people are professing Atheism per se.
Atheist war mongrels use these data to claim that the population is becoming more atheistic. We should not be distracted by these sorts of pathetic argumentative tactics.

Interbane wrote:

Therefore, if the aim of physical theories is to explain experimental laws, theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics...

I've always thought that science was subordinate to philosophy. Or at least under the umbrella of philosophy. The philosophy of science.

Here's my response to the above:

subordinate in which mind? subordinate is a very onerous concept, a very "christian" word, military, authoritarian, it makes me think of monarchs, priesthoods and submission to the tyranny of monied fools.

What's my point here, you ask?

Notice how the troll thanked you for your post, demonstrating appreciation for your thoughts on how you believe science is "subordinate" to philosophy minus the accusation that the very word itself is "very christian" that makes him think of priesthoods and submission to tyranny.
The word "subordinate" here is okay.
But then again, you aren't "infected" with Christianity.

When Stawrhe uses the word, out comes the bias in the vomitous implicit accusation that Stawrhe is using the word in a "very christian" manner.

Lesson learned here:
Let's attack the person whenever we get the chance.

This is great stuff.