>>12873710Metaphysics is typically regarded as superior to material science, yes. One of the more famous reasons is that the scientific method is actually a classic case of circular reasoning, i.e. we will set out to prove something by this method, we proved it, therefore it’s correct. In other words, it’s correct because we say our method is correct, but what proves the method correct? Well, the correct results obviously.
Whereas metaphysics isn’t results-oriented, but more insightful on what must be certain cosmic principles, for instance the Lucretian assertion that something cannot come from nothing (De rarem natura, 150-200 or so) and the further explanations and extrapolations from that ever since, until material science itself came around to the same notion. This is a typical trend, that metaphysical philosophers will establish something hundreds of years or sometimes thousands, prior to material science.
That being said, it seems clear that it’s more difficult to be a high level physicist than a great metaphysical philosopher, just because the amount of expertise you need is more than simply some nous. While at the same time, that doesn’t mean that the most intelligent people are physicists instead of metaphysicists, in fact I’d give the preference to metaphysics. Possibly they only have more big names because it’s a deeper tradition and physics is relatively recent, but I think metaphysics is just a deeper subject that requires a higher IQ than something purely material. But that doesn’t mean that any given metaphycisist will be reliably more intelligent than a physicist, or vice versa.
