just wonder what one has to do with the other. a politics and sex forum would have some things in common but science and philosophy???

The majesteria overlap round bout here >>>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

I think the main reason they are grouped together on mingle2 is related to the amount of traffic we have. A while back we had even fewer forums, with more unusually combinations, and as we grew they split them up. I think that decision (which forums to split) was partly based on volume of posts.

I would support a decision to create separate 'science' and 'philosophy' forums.

Hmmm... I would be even more supportive of keeping "science and academic philosophy" together, and creating another section for "colloquial philosophy, personal philosophy, and non-scientific quasi religious beliefs".

Leave that for the experts i think

One generations 'non-scientific quasi dreligious beliefs' becomes the next generations 'this is science'...

Once the earth was flat - by the science of the time.
Once the earth was the center of the solar system... by the science of the time.

Once Jupiter was a god... by the science of the time.

If we are talking about an empirical, rational belief system - this is sometimes true, after evidence is obtained to justify those beliefs. I agree with you.


I may be misunderstanding/misrepresenting your true meaning, but I don't agree with the examples you gave to illustrate this idea.



Beliefs 1 and 3 were held by a significant group of people at some time, but #1 and $3 were never held to be true by a large body of rational empiricists! They were held to be true mostly by people who subscribed to the logical fallacy of 'argument from authority'; many who talk about science fall prey to this fallacy, and some actual scientists may fall prey in their private thoughts, but you will never find a published work in a reputable journal that commits the logical fallacy of argument from authority without bringing immediate criticism.

#1 and #3 illustrate exactly why contemporary science is indeed 'special', and superior to every previous large scale effort humanity has made to investigate the material world.

Philosophy is the "science" of human thought?

Emm, Id say that philosophy like science is a systematic approach / method for achieving a rational understanding of complex topics and that science IS philosophy taken further by empiricism and falsification.


There is some witty quote out there on the interwebs I really like that goes something like this . . . .

A philosopher is a scientist without a laboratory.



Wish I could find it, much more eloquent than myself.