CMV: Metaphysics is a load of old mumbo-jumbo - or at least all the questions in it have already been answered by science

I have never read a bit of metaphysics that doesn't come across as essentially pointless and cryptic phrasing of something just as validly explained by science (and usually written in a more clear and concise way). Even if it's a philosophical concept that would require a bit more discussion in a practical setting, I'm not aware of anything that has been said by philosophers on the subject that hasn't been said by scientists. <br><br>Example: The Philosophical Problem of Consciousness<br>Philosophical solution: Say some words about it then claim what you've said adds value to the discussion.<br>Scientific solution: Neurology, psychology and all those other branches of science that focus on the mind. We have identified the biological mechanisms behind it, we can see it on brain scans, we can predict the outcome of 'thought experiments' such as Mary's Room without having to consider it as a philosophical problem.<br><br>Second example: Should a doctor save a patient or a relative?<br>Philosophical solution: Talk endlessly about how they're both valid perspectives that should be considered. Take both sides.<br>Scientific solution: Let's talk to the patients involved, consult with the relatives and the doctors in question, look at the case histories - no, I'm kidding. Almost no philosopher will even attempt to do that, and I am too. Scientific solution: Doctors pledge to do no harm. Doctors also have to make difficult decisions and they should make the decision that is clinically right. What is clinically right will depend on all this other stuff that we can't really say what would be right without knowing so a doctor will have to do what they think is right, which will be a decision that is as personal as it is scientific. I'm not going to say 'do the right thing' because that's an empty sentence but I'm not going to make a philosophical argument about it because I think I have already made clear that such an argument would be pointless.<br><br>I think that's as much detail as is needed to demonstrate my point.