Another aspect to the matter might be this: science asks questions to find answers, whereas metaphysics finds answers to ask questions. It is a metaphorical way to put it, to be sure, and one that simplifies the matter, but I think it might give us a hint of the difference between these two.

Metaphysics is a process of thought not necessarily directed at a conclusion. It is more like a way of organizing our beliefs and the way we experience the world into a holistic description. Because of the monumentality of the program, it is safe to assume that no conclusions will be found. For physics it is enough to give knowledge and predict phenomena etc, but what metaphysics tries to include in the view is experiences of these facts and phenomena in addition to the facts and phenomena themselves. In this it will most certainly fall out of the scientific approach, because of the difficulties involved in defining terms like "sensation of redness" etc.

Often it is said that metaphysics questions the presuppositions of science. However, to me this sounds rather problematic. Surely scientists themselves are capable of questioning their presuppositions (as was already mentioned by someone) - if they were not, how could science overcome its paradigmas? But if we cling to the above definition of metaphysics, then all scientists are partly metaphysicians. But not only because they have metaphysical tendencies, but because it is included in the scientific method itself. Metaphysics would not be non-scientific, unless science is defined as something that never questions its presuppositions. That would sound to me like a rather arrogant claim.

I think the difference between science and metaphysics is not in the other questioning the presuppositions of the other. If it was, why not then include metaphysics as a part of science, because it is clearly useful to the scientific process itself, much like clear definitions of terms? Instead, metaphysics seems to concern itself with a wholly different question alltogether.

Metaphysics, for example, has pursued "substance" in the course of history. A physicist could easily say that physics has resolved the problem of substance and go on to claim that all is energy. Disregarding the problems of such a claim, the whole approach seems faulty to me. A metaphysician could ask: "yes, but what is energy?" and most probably just annoy the physicist. The problem is that the metaphysician is not asking a question that could be conclusively answered by such statements of the fundamentality of energy. His question is a different one, one that cannot be resolved, because it has no answer. That might be a problem to a physicist, but only because he looks at metaphysics through his own lenses. He might see metaphysics as irrelevant or useless, if by definition it does not give out answers. But that is not true. For a metaphysician the usefulness is in the process itself, in the thinking, not in the answering.

The difference could easily be expressed by looking at this image: :o). To the question "what is that?" a scientist could respond: "three consecutive characters, ':', 'o' and ')'", but one might also reply: "a smiling face". Science can tell us what there is, how it is, how it works etc, but it cannot tell us how it feels, how it is experienced, how it manifests itself etc.

If metaphysics would give out answers to questions like that of the substance, it would then be considered a science, no doubt. It does not. Yet it would be an error to consider it a faulty approach to scientific questions, to compare science and metaphysics together on the same field, because they play a different game. As faulty as saying that poetry was inferior in explaining psychological phenomena to psychology. In fact, it could be argued that poetry has far better expressed what love is than psychology. But in reality, both are faulty: they answer to different questions. Science to what love objectively is, poetry to what love subjectively is. The former to how it manifests itself in the objective realm, the latter how it is experienced.

Should metaphysics be consistent with known scientific principles? Well, should poetry? What does it matter? If a metaphysician steps on the turf of the scientist, then he should be a scientist. If he stays away, then it doesn't matter what science says. If I say "experience is everything there is", I can claim either of these two:

It could be said that number two of these is the more metaphysical claim. It states a comprehensive, holistic view of the world. It takes a point of view into the world and expresses a way a person might see the world. It speaks of the way the world is arranged in the mind of the speaker, what is valued and what is not. The number one is a more scientific claim, if not a scientific claim itself (perhaps it could be said that if it was considered a scientific claim, it would be meaningless, so it is best not to consider it as one). It states a claim beyond the subjective interpretation. It can be logically tested, if not empirically.

Yet herein lies the crux of the matter. The number one is a claim by an analytical, idealistic philosopher. The number two is a claim by a continental philosopher, perhaps a phenomenologist. The problem of analytic philosophy is that it makes it difficult for it to detach itself from science, and yet if it does not detach itself, where does its value lie? Does it really matter whether an independent reality exists or not, if it doesn't affect us humans at all? It doesn't affect science, nor does it affect our subjective view on the world. Does it not push itself into a corner so small and dark that it will fall into oblivion?

Bold claims, to be sure. It is a view from a different angle and it would be interesting to see where it will lead.

Note that I am berating neither metaphysics nor science. I have great deal of respect for both, and study both. I think they both have their places in the greater scheme of things, and that I consider it a richness to understand both.