First of all, if you haven't read Moonbie's journal entry on this, YOU SHOULD! I have decided to start a thread on this because I have a few "opinions" and questions on it, and I didn't think it was appropriate to add them as comments. So Moonbie, I hope you don't mind..... What does it mean to say that "philosophy is the origin of scientific method"? Is this in reference to historical origin of the scientific method? Or does this refer to how things are done in practice? If you are refering to the possible historical origin (which I don't think you are), then maybe..... However, if you are refering to it as being the universal, or even a common practice, then I disagree. You stated that "Sometimes what begin as philosophical debates....." I have no problem with that. To me, the EPR paradox began as a "philosophical" debate until Bell showed the possibility of testing for such a thing. But this occurs sometime. I continued reading your article and it didn't say what happened other times. Thus, it would be difficult to imply that such a thing is a universal statement on the practice of science. I'm guessing that this is connected to the previous one. Again, it's difficult to connect a metaphor with what it actually means. If you are saying that the scientific method is based on logic, and that logic is philosophy, then sure. We can then lump every single knowledge of the universe as having "roots" in philosophy. However, is this really true in practice? This is where you can ring the Irony Bell. After smacking the quacks who kept quoting Einstein's quote about imagination being more important than knowledge, I'm going to use that to demonstrate my point. Most of us, after we have attained a level of education or knowledge, are now guided by not only what we have understood, but with our intuition. This is why we tried gaining as much knowledge as we can, so that our intuition is not faulty due to our ignorance of the subject matter. However, intuition and "imagination" are often "irrational" and "illogical". I lost count how many times I've pursued something simply based on gut instinct. Many went nowhere, but quite a few resulted in worthwhile endeavors (worthwhile enough to get fundings and several publications). I can't say if the "roots" of such a line of thinking is based on any scientific method. I may have joined the scientific method line when I tested my intuition, but it certainly didn't come into existence based on it. I find that it is always dicey at best to nail down what a "scientific method" really is. I do know that it is never just one single "thing", nor a single .... er... "practice". We never teach "scientific method" to budding physicists. The majority acquire the skill to do science via simply doing it, rather than talking/studying about it. The origin of many advancement in knowledge did not come out of a "philosophical" issue. In fact, many came out simply by accidents and irrational pursuit. The fact is that most scientists are ignorant of the subject of philosophy, but can still function very well as scientists. Now, one could argue that just because one didn't know about it, or didn't study it, doesn't mean it doesnt' exist, or play any important role. But is this a "given"? Since we are using metaphors here, let's see if I'm good at it. Let's say that equivalent to being the "roots" of scientific origin, we let philosophy be the knowledge of a system at the individual particle level. After all, if we buy into reductionism, being the "root" of something is means that it is the knowledge at the most fundamental, lowest level of interaction. (Now Vanesh and others may disagree with this, but let's play along.. If we accept the Pines-Anderson-Laughlin axis regarding emergent phenomena, then in principle, our knowledge of the fundamental interaction tells us nothing about how we can derive those phenomena. Even if we disagree with that, at the VERY least, our current understanding of emergent phenomena (such as superconductivity, magnetism, fractional quantum hall effect), makes NO USE of such low level interaction. The starting point to describe such phoenomena is the many-body ground state where collective interactions dominates. Such description is immune to the details of what is going on at the individual particle scale (the so-called quantum protectorate). How does this convoluted picture connect to what we're talking about? If what you say is true that philosophy is the root of the scientific method (assuming that there is such a well-defined thing), then if I equate philosophy = interactions at single particle scale science = emergent phenomena then science is IMMUNE to philosophy. It neither cares, nor look to it for "guidance". How science is done and practiced are my evidence. I've probably gone off on a tangent here, but hey, that's my response.. :) Zz.