By conduit, I was not referring to a deferral against Hume’s ideas, and there are some in Philosophy who do not poin to the problem caused by what is\or should be. The conduit is not iffy like that, it is, rather, the underlying forces generated by physics and metaphysics.
The mathematical basis of physics , when it predisposes metaphysics, which is grappling with the empirical logic’s incompleteness, in terms of a reductive, or referential logical system, is not yet clarified do to many other variables which have not yet been referred to a satisfactory understanding which can unite all the partial functional understanding of what is at stake.
Empirical specialists struggle for pre eminently to position themselves into more advantages and superior positions, and use hypothetical paradigmns to beat each other to those positions.
What a mistake that is remains to be seen, and to categorize modern partial functions as if they were simply attachable disassociated partial circuitry is using mistaken hypothesis.
It is not to say that computer analogies of that high caliber are never to be discovered in the future, but until then , a viable truth machine does not yet exist to give an ultimate verdict on the infallibility of inferential, rather then referential logic.
So on those grounds, I may sustain my opinion, which incidentally gives an analogous interpretation of ideas purporting a regression into myth , for these purposes.
In other words, it seems to me, You are advocating a total uselessness of metaphysical considerations so that to buttress up a total and absolute rationale for science.
What I am saying is, even if, science can get there, to that place where a total vindication is possible, and it point point to a final and successful impartiality between various factions of knowledge, even then, You may be at a disadvantage to prioritize one from the other, vis. Physics, over metaphysics. The reason for that, is, at that point causation will break down, and all temporilization as well.
But the question then, as is now should be posed, at what point will science loose the courage to ask, if, the end point to reach such an effort will result in a God filled eternity, or the coming of the reign of the Beast.
As some of the talk of demonology in various forums here seems to put a damper on discussion of other than a strictly archaic explanations, consensus among the well versed Gnostics seem to go the other way, and go at least to the point Nietzche arrived- beyond the problem.