Radical naturalized metaphysics wants to argue (1) that metaphysics without sufficient epistemic warrant should not be pursued, (2) that the traditional methods of metaphysics cannot provide epistemic warrant, (3) that metaphysics using these methods must therefore be discontinued, and (4) that naturalized metaphysics should be pursued instead since (5) such science-based metaphysics succeeds in establishing justified conclusions about ultimate reality. This paper argues that to defend (5), naturalized metaphysics must rely on methods similar to those criticized in (2). If naturalized metaphysics instead opts for the weaker claim that science-based metaphysics is only superior to other metaphysics, then this is insufficient to establish (4). In this case, (4) might therefore be defeated by (1). An alternative is to replace (1) with the view that we should just approach metaphysical questions with the best means available. While this would recommend a science-based approach whenever possible, it would also allow for the continuation of science-independent metaphysics in domains that science has no bearing on and thus reject (3). The paper concludes that none of these alternatives is entirely satisfactory for naturalized metaphysics.

中文翻译：

---

归化形而上学的三难困境

激进的自然化形而上学想要论证 (1) 不应该追求没有足够认识依据的形而上学，(2) 传统的形而上学方法不能提供认识依据，(3) 因此必须停止使用这些方法的形而上学，以及 (4 ) 应该追求自然化的形而上学，因为 (5) 这种以科学为基础的形而上学成功地建立了关于终极现实的合理结论。本文认为，为了捍卫（5），自然化的形而上学必须依赖于与（2）中所批评的方法类似的方法。如果自然化的形而上学反而选择更弱的主张，即基于科学的形而上学仅优于其他形而上学，那么这不足以成立（4）。在这种情况下，(4) 可能因此被 (1) 打败。另一种方法是用我们应该用可用的最佳方法来处理形而上学问题的观点来代替 (1)。虽然这会尽可能推荐一种基于科学的方法，但它也会允许在科学没有影响的领域继续独立于科学的形而上学，因此拒绝 (3)。该论文的结论是，对于自然化的形而上学，这些替代方案中没有一个是完全令人满意的。