Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
no, science is not philosophy, otherwise it would be called philosophy.
a theory is called a theory because it is backed be repeatable experimentation by 3rd parties where yes, we can actually see the results, as well as
many other bits of 'proof'.
so far, electric universe fails on all of these fronts, and anyone who believes in such a flawed and made up is just stupid. The FSM is more
Deal with it.
O.k. I've dealt with it. and my findings are that Science is a Philosophy.
It seems you say this for lack of understanding of what a Philosophy is.
"Many definitions of philosophy begin by stating the difficulty of defining the subject, calling it "notoriously difficult", saying that there
is "no straightforward definition" and that most interesting definitions of philosophy are controversial. However, a review of standard
reference works         suggests that there is a broad agreement among such sources that philosophy involves the study of
fundamental or general topics; e.g. "the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality", "the
most general questions about our universe and our place in it", the "absolutely fundamental reason of everything it investigates", or "the
fundamental reasons or causes of all things". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy says it is the investigation of the most general and abstract
features of the world and the categories with which we think, in order to "lay bare their foundations and presuppositions"."
# S: (n) doctrine, philosophy, philosophical system, school of thought, ism (a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group
# S: (n) philosophy (the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics)
# S: (n) philosophy (any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation) "self-indulgence was his only philosophy"; "my
father's philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it"
Even Scientist believe that science is a philosophy:
"Many years ago when SF was undergoing a change of leadership we had a major debate on this subject. The administrators finally conceded (with some
reluctance) that Physics is correctly defined as a Philosophy and that Quantum Physics is correctly defined as a Mathematical Prediction Theory. agree
it is a Philosophy"
How can Science not be a philosophy? A philosophy is simply a certain way of looking at something - Science certainly does that.
Closed minded scientists do not like to believe this because it opens the possibility that there are other interpretations of the observable phenomena
that can be correct. These Scientist maintain that they Must be right even if they are proven wrong. If true Science was really like this we would
still be back in the stone age trying to catch fire when lightening strikes.
The truth is science is all about change and growth. It is all about building on the knowledge of the past to form a more complete understanding of
the world around us. Science Must change and change continually in the light of new observations, theories and experiments. "Science" has been
proven wrong time and time again and will continue to do so no matter how big your research grant is. I suggest Scientists learn to change with the
new data and become part of the solution for the betterment of mankind instead of refusing to honestly consider the possibility that they may be
I can understand if you still disagree with the new data or theory, but for gods sakes man, your scientists.. you Must remain objective and open to
new possibilities or you are not real scientist at all.
You say, "a theory is called a theory because it is backed be repeatable experimentation by 3rd parties where yes, we can actually see the results,
as well as many other bits of 'proof'.
I have already posted the definition of a Theory. Perhaps you didn't see it. I will re post it: From Wikipedia:
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
I do not see where "electric universe fails on all of these fronts" at all.
[edit on 17-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]