How Metaphysics, Epistemology, & Science are Connected

Metaphysics is one of many core subjects within the larger scene of philosophy. It asks questions about the nature of
being and reality. Metaphysics exists to answer things like: “does free will exist”, “why do things exist”, “what is our place in
the universe”, “what does our space most commonly consist of”, “what, scientifically and philosophically, is the present, future,
and past?”, and “do we all see the same colors”.1 Questions like these are things that can’t fully be explained by physical
science, or other fields of philosophy. It evolved from very quotes such as:

“Being is the most barren and abstract of all categories,” [Hegel, Paraphrased].2

Regardless of it being paraphrased, this quote makes sense as a metaphysical statement none the less. It is a very
dense and full field. It deals with existence as a whole and touches on many facets of life. Metaphysics looks at human
functioning and sorting (how we sort alive and non alive things), how language effects mindsets, and why any matter exists at
all. It seeks to answer questions that will always be around, so long as humans are alive.

The problems with metaphysics, however, must be understood in a greater epistemological context. Epistemology
deals with the nature of knowing and truth. It asks questions like: “how are you sure you know something”, “how do you know
100% truthful information”, “what can you not know”, “what do you fail to know and remember”, “what are our eyes not
seeing, and why do we have optical illusions and hallucinations”. Epistemology aims to explain how language affects how
people perceive truth, and looks at distinctions about aspects of knowledge and knowing.3 How is one to know a tree they check
on in 20 minute intervals is the same tree? Sure it looks the same and may be in the same spot, but within small intervals the tree
is nonetheless growing in small ways and changing. It is impossible to assert the tree is the exact same tree that you have
checked on previously, and there is no real reason to believe the tree is still in existence while you're not observing it. So how do
we group this category of knowing?

Of course, these two philosophical avenues exist alongside many others. They are particularly interesting due to their
interplay with the others, and particularly with each other!

How can one answer deep metaphysical questions about the world, while not being aware of their own assumption that
they are even capable of obtaining said deep knowledge? Metaphysical questions are often posed without answers; and this is
due, I would guess, the dense nature of metaphysical thought. It is quite hard to find answers to many posed questions in
metaphysics, and it becomes nearly impossible to do when considering metaphysics in the context of epistemology.
Metaphysicians could fall victim to assuming that a universal4 truth can be obtained, without ever considering their core belief
that something such as an objective truth even exists. For example, information can be changed to convey different stories.
Looking at mainstream media is a common example, but a more philosophical one is as follows. “Cows kill more people than
sharks every year” vs “sharks kill less people than cows every year”. Both true statements, but both convey different contextual
information.5 The question of if we all see the same colors requires us to define colors, which is (while normally classified as a
metaphysical problem), requires us to have an epistemologically critical outlook on what colors are, how we know we perceive
them correctly at all, and if we can truly know what colors are at all.

1 https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2011/08/horizon.shtml
2 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#WordMetaConcMeta
3 https://www.britannica.com/topic/epistemology
4 In some cases not necessarily universal.
5 https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/23/us/things-more-likely-to-kill-you-than-a-shark/index.html
 The metaphysical problem of “what is the nature of reality,” presupposes that we are able to know things at all, and
that the idea of knowing is understood same by everyone. The word reality, requires epistemological thought to understand.
Philosophers and scientists will give a very different answer to what the structure and nature of reality is, but both are different
sides of the same epistemological coin. Scientists look at what they “know” to be true (atoms, quantum physics, and
neuroscience) and apply those teachings as their answers to what our reality is. Philosophers will lookat it on a much more
abstract way, starting at defining existence and then scrutinizing various aspects of reality. This for metaphysics to keep
expanding it must utilize a more epistemological outlook.

From this point it’s clear to see how those two philosophical branches are connected. But what should be understood
next is how these ideas connect deeply to science. Epistemology asks how we can know things for sure, and one answer is: “if it
is observable, repeatable, and testable, its real”. This is often the benchmark used for science I would argue, as peer reviewed
papers are trusted more, as well as papers with tests done by third parties as well. Science answers questions about cells and how
our bodies are constantly being recycled, so it can help answer metaphysical questions about time. But epistemology must be
used to critique the scientific worldview. This must be done to ultimately increase the effectiveness of metaphysics as a whole.

Suggestions:

To strengthen the connection between epistemology and metaphysics, you can emphasize how they both contribute to the
process of understanding reality, but from different angles:

1. **Epistemology as the Foundation of Metaphysical Inquiry**: You could argue that any metaphysical question (such as
“What is the nature of reality?”) presupposes epistemological assumptions about how we come to know things. For example,
before we ask if free will exists (a metaphysical question), we must address how we know or could ever know the answer (an
epistemological question). This establishes a more direct link, showing that epistemology shapes the methods and boundaries of
metaphysical inquiry.

2. **Mutual Dependence**: While metaphysics explores what is real, epistemology deals with how we justify beliefs about
reality. You can argue that the two fields are mutually dependent: metaphysical claims require epistemological justification (how
do we know this is true?), and epistemology often explores the limits of knowledge based on metaphysical assumptions (what
kinds of things can we know, given the nature of reality?).

3. **Shared Problems, Different Angles**: Use shared philosophical problems to illustrate their interplay. For example, you
could examine the nature of time from both perspectives: metaphysics asks "What is time?" while epistemology asks "How do
we know time exists, and how do we measure it accurately?" This way, the two fields are solving related problems, albeit from
different angles.

By highlighting these dynamics, you can show that metaphysics and epistemology aren't separate disciplines but rather deeply
intertwined in the pursuit of understanding reality. This approach can create a more cohesive argument in your essay.