The Role of Philosophy in Science: Separating Fact from Fiction

[RetiredMD]

Indeed ignorance is bliss...Honestly the feeling is that I speak with the winds.Anyway those who [are] prepared to understand will understand (puting also the hand on a book on philosophy of science,it is not my goal to teach here).The rest should maturize by themselves.

I have enjoyed your insights Metacristi. I am not sure why ZapperZ is hostile to your input. It seems like you are more in agreement with his views than opposed to them.

Have a nice day,
Morris

 

[RetiredMD]

After careful consideration, the utterly objective judges have unanimously determined that the philosophy side of this debate has won. Congratulations to the Socratic wanna-bees team! The deciding factor? Well, what tipped the scales in favor of the wisdom fellows (otherwise known as wise asses) was that the leader of the science team spent a better part of the weekend participating in a debate concerning the epistemological value of Occam's Razor. Due to his deeply passionate involvement in a philosophical debate, and quite a lively one at that, the judges had no choice but to conclude he’s finally seen the light (which the philosophy side saw along), and realizes that philosophy and science are kindred spirits, like peas in a pod, forever and ever linked in the pursuit of Truth. Let’s raise our glasses to a more collaborative future!

Thanks for my daily laugh. You may be overly optimistic about future collaborations between science and philosophy.

Have a nice day,
Morris

 

[ZapperZ]

Indeed ignorance is bliss...Honestly the feeling is that I speak with the winds.Anyway those who [are] prepared to understand will understand (puting also the hand on a book on philosophy of science,it is not my goal to teach here).The rest should maturize by themselves.

Yikes!

I asked a question to try to understand WHY you stated that Newton's First Law is considered to be "metaphysical" and "should not be a part of science", especially when implicitly, it appears that you have excluded the 2nd and 3rd law! This appears puzzling and inconsistent to me. And all I got in return were attacks for asking!

I'm sorry I asked!

Zz.

 

[metacristi]

I have enjoyed your insights Metacristi. I am not sure why ZapperZ is hostile to your input. It seems like you are more in agreement with his views than opposed to them.

Have a nice day,
Morris

Maybe.But from what I've read from him I really doubt that he has really understood even the basics of the popperian approach.Thus I find futile to discuss with him the clear limits of [falsificationism],it's a waste of time and effort.

 

[arildno]

Maybe.But from what I've read from him I really doubt that he has understand even the basics of the popperian approach.Thus I find futile to discuss with him the clear limits of [falsificationism],it's a waste of time and effort.

Well you have proven yourself to be completely ignorant of physics; your condescending tone is that of an arrogant fool.

 

[ZapperZ]

I have enjoyed your insights Metacristi. I am not sure why ZapperZ is hostile to your input. It seems like you are more in agreement with his views than opposed to them.

Have a nice day,
Morris

Honestly, I failed to see where I am being "hostile" towards the whole posting. I was infact happy that metacristi finally used some concrete example to illustrate a point. And if you think I am not in agreement with the claim that something is "metaphysical" and thus "should not be a part of science", then you are wrong.

However, why would this stop me from questioning a section of what is being said, especially when I find it rather strange. I didn't realize that I should be forced to accept it whole or none at all. The explanation given on why JUST the 1st law is "metaphysical" and not the 2nd and 3rd is vague. Is this not a legitimate question to ask?

Oy vey!

Zz.

 

[metacristi]

Yikes!

I asked a question to try to understand WHY you stated that Newton's First Law is considered to be "metaphysical" and "should not be a part of science", especially when implicitly, it appears that you have excluded the 2nd and 3rd law! This appears puzzling and inconsistent to me. And all I got in return were attacks for asking!

I'm sorry I asked!

Zz.

I'm tired,this is the last time when I adress you.If you had been really interested you'd have tried at least to read something more on philosophy of science and tried a constructive approach (I'm not even sure if you knows the difference between the inductionist approach and falsificationism).You act as if you knew so well but in fact without really understanding...honestly the 'fun' you try to express with your words is a clear sign of your manifest ignorance on the subject,as someone more experienced in philosophy of science could easily indicate.Why should I waste my time with you?Anyway as I've already said you lack the basics in logic and philosophy of science.Obviously when someone,totally ignorant,challenge me to explain physics because otherwise he does not believe a scientific statement the wisest approach is not to do so.The best approach is that he should read by himself.Anyway there is too much to be said.

Try eblaforum suggested resources:

http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=22

 

[ZapperZ]

You act as if you knew so well but in fact without really understanding...honestly the 'fun' you try to express with your words is a clear sign of your manifest ignorance on the subject...

Now that's funny, because I've been saying that when you make claims about science and physics in particular. It appears that the burden of "learning about things" only falls on me, but not on you.

Obviously when someone,totally ignorant,challenge me to explain physics because otherwise he does not believe a scientific statement

Pardon me, but what "scientific" statement did you just make? You said that Newton's First Law is a metaphysics and should not be considered as science. You call this a "scientific statement"? And you accuse me of being ignorant of things I'm talking about? Hello?

No, what is ignorant is the fact that you realize you are STUCK with making a statement that you cannot support. You do not want to answer my question because you cannot claim that Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws are also "metaphysical". If it is, then you'd better get out of the building you're in, and not cross any bridges. By doing that, you automatically show (at least to anyone with a knowledge first year intro physics lesson) of the inconsistency of claiming that the 1st law is metaphysical.

Maybe you can get away with making unchecked statements like this elsewhere, who knows. But to turn this around and attack me for questioning what you just said... now that's a diversion tactic if I've ever seen one. You want me to read a philosophy of science book? Sure... only if you spend time learning Halliday and Resnick Intro Physics text.

Zz.