Is scientific knowledge the best?

[Age]

It can be quite simple.

Science is the best source of knowledge

But once we know of something to be scientifically correct, we can move philosophy to a further level too. Because of science, philosophy can move on, become more integrate and the best philosophical ideas become proven as time may pass; proven by science and thus become knowledge.

Knowledge here is perceived with certainty, where as without science we perceive with varying degrees of uncertainty.

Without science, we couldn’t have philosophy. For philosophy will always create a desire to know, and therefore philosophy will always give birth to science; as science will gives to new realms of philosophy

So, to you, we cannot have 'philosophy', without 'science' first, but it is 'philosophy' that always gives birth to 'science', correct?

If no, then what is correct?

But if yes, then can you see anything wrong with this?

What do the words 'science' and 'philosophy' mean or refer to, to you?

[socrat44]

It can be quite simple.

Science is the best source of knowledge

But once we know of something to be scientifically correct, we can move philosophy to a further level too. Because of science, philosophy can move on, become more integrate and the best philosophical ideas become proven as time may pass; proven by science and thus become knowledge.

Knowledge here is perceived with certainty, where as without science we perceive with varying degrees of uncertainty.

Without science, we couldn’t have philosophy. For philosophy will always create a desire to know, and therefore philosophy will always give birth to science; as science will gives to new realms of philosophy

So, to you, we cannot have 'philosophy', without 'science' first, but it is 'philosophy' that always gives birth to 'science', correct?

If no, then what is correct?

But if yes, then can you see anything wrong with this?

What do the words 'science' and 'philosophy' mean or refer to, to you?

Einstein --- Feynman

[Age]

It can be quite simple.

Science is the best source of knowledge

But once we know of something to be scientifically correct, we can move philosophy to a further level too. Because of science, philosophy can move on, become more integrate and the best philosophical ideas become proven as time may pass; proven by science and thus become knowledge.

Knowledge here is perceived with certainty, where as without science we perceive with varying degrees of uncertainty.

Without science, we couldn’t have philosophy. For philosophy will always create a desire to know, and therefore philosophy will always give birth to science; as science will gives to new realms of philosophy

So, to you, we cannot have 'philosophy', without 'science' first, but it is 'philosophy' that always gives birth to 'science', correct?

If no, then what is correct?

But if yes, then can you see anything wrong with this?

What do the words 'science' and 'philosophy' mean or refer to, to you?

Einstein --- Feynman

So, in other words, 'you' have absolutely no clue nor idea at all, correct?

[adzfitness]

I like this thank you for the reply!

So, it does depend on the definition of science. As of course the human mind has created the term of science and what we deem to be included in the subject of science. 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.

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.

[adzfitness]

So, to you, we cannot have 'philosophy', without 'science' first, but it is 'philosophy' that always gives birth to 'science', correct?

If no, then what is correct?

But if yes, then can you see anything wrong with this?

What do the words 'science' and 'philosophy' mean or refer to, to you?

Einstein --- Feynman

So, in other words, 'you' have absolutely no clue nor idea at all, correct?

I like this thank you for the reply!

So, it does depend on the definition of science. As of course the human mind has created the term of science and what we deem to be included in the subject of science. 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.

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.

[Age]

I like this thank you for the reply!

You do like 'what'? What is 'this'?

So, it does depend on the definition of science.

What is 'it', that supposedly does depend on the definition of science?

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?

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.

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.

[adzfitness]

I like this thank you for the reply!

You do like 'what'? What is 'this'?

So, it does depend on the definition of science.

What is 'it', that supposedly does depend on the definition of science?

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?

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.

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? Unless of course you can't actually see this answers in the above? 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)? 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". 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

[Age]

I like this thank you for the reply!

You do like 'what'? What is 'this'?

So, it does depend on the definition of science.

What is 'it', that supposedly does depend on the definition of science?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[adzfitness]

You do like 'what'? What is 'this'?


What is 'it', that supposedly does depend on the definition of science?



What is the "human mind" exactly?


Okay, if you say so.


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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

To go back to the question I believe you are expecting a yes or no answer to is from a presumption you have made from my statement by giving the response: "So, to you, we cannot have 'philosophy', without 'science' first, but it is 'philosophy' that always gives birth to 'science', correct? " Is this the question you ar referring to? If so then I have given my reply. If you would like a yes or no answer then the questions must be definitive enough to provide one - If we were to take science as the products of nature and their relations, that have always existed, that humans have science given the term science to the study of which, ie you have to define science yourself before asking a question of such nature! In mentioning science are we referring to the things themselves that humans have termed and bracketed under "science" or are we referring to the human created topic of science? As the yes or no answer would depend on that definition. As nothing gives birth to science unless we created the natural laws. The laws existed before humans did, ie if you were to read a book on quantum physics then all that you read has existed prior to the term quantum physics and prior to philosophy, but it required the human understanding of it and to publish that understanding to allow us to know of those things as quantum physics; but we did not create the things in themselves. Philosophy gives birth to and a desire for more human understanding of the things we then call science. But the scientific laws have existed before they were called such, before humans existed and thus before philosophy existed.

[Age]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

To go back to the question I believe you are expecting a yes or no answer to is from a presumption you have made from my statement by giving the response: "So, to you, we cannot have 'philosophy', without 'science' first, but it is 'philosophy' that always gives birth to 'science', correct? " Is this the question you ar referring to? If so then I have given my reply. If you would like a yes or no answer then the questions must be definitive enough to provide one - If we were to take science as the products of nature and their relations, that have always existed, that humans have science given the term science to the study of which, ie you have to define science yourself before asking a question of such nature! In mentioning science are we referring to the things themselves that humans have termed and bracketed under "science" or are we referring to the human created topic of science?

I do not know and I do not even know who the 'we' is that 'you' are referring to here. Also, that is WHY I asked 'you' specifically to define the words 'science' and 'philosophy'.

As the yes or no answer would depend on that definition. [/quote]

Well 'we' are waiting for 'your' definition, which I have already clearly asked for.

As nothing gives birth to science unless we created the natural laws.

If the word 'we' here refers to human beings, then obviously 'we' did NOT create the 'natural laws', themselves. But, 'we' obviously created the term and phrase 'natural laws' to refer to some things.

The laws existed before humans did, ie if you were to read a book on quantum physics then all that you read has existed prior to the term quantum physics and prior to philosophy, but it required the human understanding of it and to publish that understanding to allow us to know of those things as quantum physics; but we did not create the things in themselves. Philosophy gives birth to and a desire for more human understanding of the things we then call science. But the scientific laws have existed before they were called such, before humans existed and thus before philosophy existed.

How could "scientific laws" have existed BEFORE there was any understanding of the things 'we' call "science"? What are 'scientific laws', to you?

Of course 'natural laws' existed BEFORE human conception evolved into being, but what is 'science', and 'scientific laws', to you?

By the way, 'we' are still waiting for your definition of the word 'science', and of the word 'philosophy'.

Also, are you yet able to see how saying, " we cannot have 'philosophy', without 'science' first, but it is 'philosophy' that always gives birth to 'science' ", could appear very contradictory?

[stevie]

Science can be defines as the an organized and dynamic body of knowledge which is a result of careful investigation, by means of careful observation, measurement, experimentation, examination of records, and surveys. While science is a result of careful investigation, philosophy is based on reasoning, and religion is based on faith. Does this make science the supreme source of knowledge?

Applying scientific "knowledge" leads to material results, applying philosophical or religious "knowledge" leads to mental results. What kind of results are "better" or "best", material or mental? Depends on what is pursued.

[Ansiktsburk]

Science can be defines as the an organized and dynamic body of knowledge which is a result of careful investigation, by means of careful observation, measurement, experimentation, examination of records, and surveys. While science is a result of careful investigation, philosophy is based on reasoning, and religion is based on faith. Does this make science the supreme source of knowledge?

Applying scientific "knowledge" leads to material results, applying philosophical or religious "knowledge" leads to mental results. What kind of results are "better" or "best", material or mental? Depends on what is pursued.

Philosophy of science led to development of the scientific method which is kind of a mental thing, which produces a lot of physical things. Philosophy comes first.

[Jori]

I think, what Ansiktburk refers to as philosophy of science, which comes before science, includes the following scientifically unproven assumptions about science:
1. Intelligibility - The world can be understood.
2. Orderliness - Nature is orderly and has patterns.
3. Uniformity - Although the universe changes, the underlying laws of nature remain the same in time and space.
4. Worthwhileness - Science is a worthwhile and legitimate activity.
5. Rationality - Our thought processes make sense and basically reliable.

[socrat44]

I think, what Ansiktburk refers to as philosophy of science, which comes before science, includes the following scientifically unproven assumptions about science:
1. Intelligibility - The world can be understood.
2. Orderliness - Nature is orderly and has patterns.
3. Uniformity - Although the universe changes, the underlying laws of nature remain the same in time and space.
4. Worthwhileness - Science is a worthwhile and legitimate activity.
5. Rationality - Our thought processes make sense and basically reliable.

If the world can be understood and our thought processes make
sense and basically reliable then why is quantum physics called "weird" ?

[Cerveny]

Mainstream physics (apart from quantum mechanics) seems to be paralyzed, sent to the wheelchair by the theory of relativity, its misunderstanding of the structure and evolution of the universe - of a block (crystal) of causality, growing by rate in the order c