I don’t understand what you’re talking about. You’ve been using the term “scientific claim” a lot, and I am really confused by what you mean by that. Seems like we just have very different ideas of what science is.
A-T philosophical concepts such as substances and forms have basis in empirical reality, but it is best called pre-science rather than science as such. It is based on empirical reality, but a only very basic sort of empirical observation. For example, I observe that there are things existing around me everyday - a chair, table, my computer, a tree, a dog. Do all of these things actually exist independent of my mind? Or is my mind only taking sense data from the atoms that make up the table and creating a mental structure which I then label “chair”?
Another example: when I observe a poodle and a St Bernard for the first time, I deduce that both are species of dogs. Is this merely an illusion, or is there really such a thing as the “essence” of a dog that is common to both? I don’t think these questions could be fully resolved by consulting a zoologist expert on dogs, for example.
I find A-T philosophy helpful to explain a few things. Some examples:
- Understanding the nature of God (e.g. divine simplicity) and his relationship to the world (primary/secondary causality)
- The laws of nature
- Interpretations of quantum mechanics (i.e. wavefunction collapse as actualization of potential)
- Philosophy of mind (the hard problem)
- Philosophy of biology (understanding the unity of organisms)
I wouldn’t count myself as a full-blown Thomist on all of the above areas just yet, only that I think A-T philosophers have said things which give interesting and satisfactory answers to common problems.
I have nothing much to say against your sweeping accusations against A-T philosophy: only that I would say it’s best to respond to arguments that have actually been advanced here, by your discussion partners, instead of quoting random people on the internet.
Finally, I think that your scaremongering that A-T philosophy is pre-modern is not helpful either. I think we should not simply dismiss something just because it’s old, or associated with outdated views. I have nothing against appropriating parts of medieval thought and combining it with modern scientific findings if they satisfactorily resolve some problems.