|
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|
|
OT question
On 26/12/17 04:47, wrote:
On Monday, 25 December 2017 18:07:14 UTC, 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'
That's a major problem with 'science' today. The experiments are
done, the results analysed and p value calculated, but somewhere
along the line the illogic of the experimenter completely screwed up,
making the conclusions largely worthless.
And that is because people are taught how to 'do science', not what
science *is*.
The death of the greatest philosopher of science of the late 20th
century, Hilary Putnam, went completely unremarked.
And yet, the way we think today, is the metaphsyics of the era somewhat
before Kant, so we may say that normal humans lag philosophers by only
300 years or so.
NT
--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."
Josef Stalin
|