On 25/12/17 20:43, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:07:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/12/17 13:43, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 11:57:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/12/17 11:44, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 09:10:43 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

But it's a philosophical question. And I thought from your name
that you might have an answer.

Natural Philosophy has nowt much to do with philosophy; it's simply
the archaic term for science.

And you think that science has nowt to do with philosophy? How
quaint!"


Natural philosophy was the term for science back in Newton's day. I'm
guessing you must surely know that, since it's your adopted moniker.


Nope, science is the modern name for natural philosophy.

It ries to pretend it isnt a branch of philsophy. This leads to huge
mistakes - like 'climate change'



I think you've had quite enough to drink now, NP. You're just re-
arranging what I said earlier.



You think that because you can't do critical thinking. Probably down to
a State Education.

Science was not 'called natural philosophy'

Science did not exist. Natural philosophy did, and still does.








--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"