adzfitness wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:08 am
Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:37 pm
adzfitness wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:26 pm
I like this thank you for the reply!
You do like 'what'? What is 'this'?
adzfitness wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:26 pm
So, it does depend on the definition of science.
What is 'it', that supposedly does depend on the definition of science?
adzfitness wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:26 pm
As of course the human mind has created the term of science and what we deem to be included in the subject of science.
What is the "human mind" exactly?
adzfitness wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:26 pm
But of course all those natural substances and laws that have existed far before humanity have not changed just because we have given them a name. Therefore science has to exist before philosophy but in the context of what we have since called science. ie humans have termed atoms and molecules as such and then have discovered relationships between objects and defined these as scientific principles, but the objects and laws existed in operation before we were around to give them the title.
Okay, if you say so.
adzfitness wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:26 pm
Then in order to give them the titles, understand relationships etc requires thought - ie to term something we have to perceive it and consider it first. Without thought at all we could not "think" I wonder if there is a relationship between objects of nature.
Again, okay, if you say so.
BUT, you wrote that 'science' was first before 'philosophy' but that it was 'philosophy' that gives birth to 'science'. I just asked you if this was, still, correct, to you, and that if it was, then do you see anything wrong with this?
These were the questions I asked and am waiting a reply to.
I also just asked you to clarify what the words 'science' and 'philosophy' mean or refer to, to you. I am also waiting for a reply to this as well.
The rest of what you wrote here I was not really interested in.
Thank you but not really sure what you are getting at here other than a desire to express some resentment you may hold to yourself with those on the board?
If you are not really sure what I was getting at here, then I will inform you.
You made a claim. I then asked you questions about your claim. This can be seen, evidenced, and proven by the questions marks at the end of my sentences, which denotes I was asking you questions. So, what I was getting at here, was an attempt at gaining clarification, from you, about your claim. Clarification, from you, was, and still is, the ONLY thing that I am trying to get here.
Either; you just answer the questions I posed to you, or, you do not. 'Trying to' work out IF I was getting at ANY thing, other than just that, would be and is just a complete and utter waste of time. The ASSUMPTION you made, by the way, is completely and utterly Wrong.
adzfitness wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:08 am
Unless of course you can't actually see this answers in the above?
If ANY one looks at the actual questions I asked you, and your response, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that you still have not yet answered those actual questions.
You may have responded, but you did NOT answer the questions.
adzfitness wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:08 am
If the questions could give a simple on word answer then they would be based on presumptions? ie if I were to say oh science came first then of course that would have not considered the response "but how could a human define relationships between objects without the thought of what things are (this is deemed as philosophy incase you are unsure but I believe you know this)?
I do not even know what you are talking about, let alone that I know 'this'. What is the 'this' that you are talking about now?
adzfitness wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:08 am
If I were to say that philosophy came first then of course I would have not considered the response: "but how can humans exist and therefore think without the scientific principles of nature that created them".
But I NEVER asked you to say ANY thing like that.
The questions that I actually asked, can be clearly seen.
The first question is a 'yes' or 'no' answer, and, the second question is about how you define two words. Very simple, really.
adzfitness wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:08 am
Despite that I would live to hear your views presuming of course that you can actually see all answers are given in my replies, but I love being shown another view that improves my own thoughts on things so when you say "okay if you say so" please elaborate as I haven't really time to get involved in a lengthy conversation with someone who believes something to be so because "I say so". Thank you
What???
If you really have not the time, then just answer 'yes' or 'no' to the first question. Then just define the two words from your perspective. If you had just done that only, 'in the beginning', then this discussion may have been over a long time ago.