Destroying Science with Philosophy

[IamRAMBO24]

True, but that isn't an problem from science it is a problem with our attitude towards science. Science isn't dogmatic by nature since the entire process relies on disproving things. It is outside social forces acting on science that creates the problems we have today.

Dogmatisim: positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant.

[COLOR="Red"]Unwarranted:[/COLOR] the blatant use of the word "fact" when they know that even Science itself is subject to change over time. These authoritative terms are use to alleviate creative thinking. When you tell someone something is a fact or that it is the word of God, you are basically telling them they should stfu and believe what they are told.

[COLOR="Red"]Arrogant: [/COLOR] Science won't accept any other truths not within it's realm.

[IamRAMBO24]

Do you not understand science? Your "stereotype" example is absurd. That wouldn't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

An observation itself is not a generalization.

An observation is a generalization, hence why Science uses induction and deduction to get to the concrete (the best ideas).

Philosophy on the other hand starts from the concrete and works its way towards a higher truth. This is the reason why both Einstein and Newton needed a philosophical background to drive their experimentation and observation.

Therefore, evolution is not because of the environment (Science), but rather from Philosophy which relies on the best ideas to further its advancement.

[travelingman]

An observation is a generalization, hence why Science uses induction and deduction to get to the concrete (the best ideas).

Philosophy on the other hand starts from the concrete and works its way towards a higher truth. This is the reason why both Einstein and Newton needed a philosophical background to drive their experimentation and observation.

Therefore, evolution is not because of the environment (Science), but rather from Philosophy which relies on the best ideas to further its advancement.

Quoted because I really don't want you to edit any of this message. So full of and and

[miller-time]

[COLOR="Red"]Unwarranted:[/COLOR] the blatant use of the word "fact" when they know that even Science itself is subject to change over time. These authoritative terms are use to alleviate creative thinking. When you tell someone something is a fact or that it is the word of God, you are basically telling them they should stfu and believe what they are told.

A fact is a piece of data. It is an observation. I observe that when I drop a pen it falls towards the earth. That is a fact. Is it possible that the pen could remain stationary or even move away from the earth? Maybe. But that hasn't been observed so like I said before practically speaking we accept that objects move towards each other under certain conditions. If every piece of data was subject to an epistemological debate then nothing would ever get done. We take observations as read because it is practical. Science does change its facts (or the parameters of facts) when new data comes in, that is a good thing. Until there is new data we use what we have. But science can hypothesize about facts we haven't observed, but we don't call them facts until we know that they exist. It is warranted because the denotation of fact is based on repeatable observation.

[COLOR="Red"]Arrogant: [/COLOR] Science won't accept any other truths not within it's realm.

What is a truth that science doesn't accept?

[Simple Jack]

An observation is a generalization, hence why Science uses induction and deduction to get to the concrete (the best ideas).

Philosophy on the other hand starts from the concrete and works its way towards a higher truth. This is the reason why both Einstein and Newton needed a philosophical background to drive their experimentation and observation.

Therefore, evolution is not because of the environment (Science), but rather from Philosophy which relies on the best ideas to further its advancement.

An observation alone is NOT a generalization....why can't you comprehend this?

[IamRAMBO24]

An observation alone is NOT a generalization....why can't you comprehend this?

The starting point of an observation is working from the whole and inducting to the concrete. This is the Scientific method of John Stuart Mill (not Newton's like many of you are misled).

This is different from Newton's because Newton started from the concrete (propositions and mathematics) and used his observations and experimentation AFTERWARDS, and not as its starting point.

[IamRAMBO24]

Quoted because I really don't want you to edit any of this message. So full of and and

Have you read John Stuart Mill? Hell you probably haven't even heard of him until this thread.

Education is so full of sh*t it can't even tell you who actually created the methodology and how he came about it that it teaches in its textbooks.

The reason why it does this is because if you guys don't understand the methodology and how it arrives at truth, you will automatically assume it's the same method Newton, Einstein, or any other respectable Scientist used to arrive at their truths.

This is the reason why nothing great ever comes out of the educational system, they can't even teach you the proper kind of Science you should be learning.

[IamRAMBO24]

A fact is a piece of data. It is an observation. I observe that when I drop a pen it falls towards the earth. That is a fact. Is it possible that the pen could remain stationary or even move away from the earth? Maybe. But that hasn't been observed so like I said before practically speaking we accept that objects move towards each other under certain conditions. If every piece of data was subject to an epistemological debate then nothing would ever get done. We take observations as read because it is practical. Science does change its facts (or the parameters of facts) when new data comes in, that is a good thing. Until there is new data we use what we have. But science can hypothesize about facts we haven't observed, but we don't call them facts until we know that they exist. It is warranted because the denotation of fact is based on repeatable observation.

The definition of a fact is a certainty, something that will exist, unchangeable, from the start of time until the end of time. Even the laws of gravity itself is subject to change the more we know about the universe, so the idea that something can actually be a fact is a misguided conception of reality. There are only temporary truths.

[miller-time]

The definition of a fact is a certainty, something that will exist, unchangeable, from the start of time until the end of time. Even the laws of gravity itself is subject to change the more we know about the universe, so the idea that something can actually be a fact is a misguided conception of reality. There are only temporary truths.

You keep missing the main point, practicality. We know facts (and by extension theories) can change or even proven to be wrong, but we don't factor in all possibilities because it is not practical to do so.

To get to the moon scientists and engineers worked with a set of facts and theories, were these facts and theories 100% accurate and true? No. Did the scientists know they were not 100% accurate and true? Yes. Did we get to the moon? Yes. We use what we have because it is the best we can do for now. And it is a good thing that facts change (and it is scientists that are demonstrating these changes in the first place) because it brings us closer to the truth*. If we held onto the same ideas and never updated them scientists would still believe the Earth is the center of the solar system.

*Ultimately we accept in science that we never reach truth but rather accept something hasn't been proven false yet. No matter how much evidence piles up for something like relativity it only takes one piece of evidence against the theory to make us update it or even smash it to pieces.