Your claim assumes that ontological changes per se are observable by scientific instruments and/or quantitative means. That assumption, however, is not true, as Aristotle showed. Physics, chemistry and biology do not determine ontology. Positivism and scientism are false philosophies. A helpful intro to philosophy book is An Introduction to Philosophy by Maritain.
-A8
Philosophy or metaphysics are bot physiology, and never the "twain shall meet."
NOT physiology, that is.
You are introducing far too much. I'm only relying upon the same epistemology that lets you understand rainbows and beards.
But, ****as a side issue****, what we know is ultimately founded upon what we observe, even if indirectly, such as understanding our own consciousness by noticing how it works with sensory perceptions and higher abstractions. This includes what we know of ontology.
That assumption, however, is not true, as Aristotle showed. Physics, chemistry and biology do not determine ontology. Positivism and scientism are false philosophies.
With all due respect to the greatest of philosophers, his grasp of epistemology was close (especially compared to Plato's nonsense), but not correct. Observations do not always determine ontology, but they are how we know it.
Calling positivism is false philosophy is akin to calling the Pope a liar because he lied once as a kid. You dismiss positivism far too lightly. It has its problems, but compared to the world of silly nonsense that makes up human thought, it is truly a beacon. It certainly is a reasonably good place to start on the way to a better philosophy.
A helpful intro to philosophy book is An Introduction to Philosophy by Maritain.
Thanks, maybe I'll add it to my collection.