Thalion wrote:I am right with my assertions on Modern Physics
I submit that by evidence of the absurtities, circumlocutions, equivocations, evasions, obfuscations, and preposterous pronouncements heretofore presented by you, that in fact is not the case, your certainty to the contrary notwithstanding.
Quote:Yes, I can see you are quite a Skeptic. I am not.
I'm quite curious, but rather rigorously demanding of both authenticated evidence and consistent logic, and I think myself neither gullible nor superstitious, if that's what you mean. I affirm and stipulate you, by your argument, appear to be none of those things. In such regard and context, you'll get no argument from me. Perhaps thats one thing on which we may agree.
Quote:If there is a model that works well, I'll keep it until I find another one.
Hardly a scientific approach. A scientific "Model" is not a static thing to be picked up or discarded according to one's preference, it is a dynamic standard against which to measure the conclusions drawn from one's own observations and deductions, and to be measured against those and such other observations and conclusions as may be relevant. In science, all are constantly considered, refined, adjusted, and redefined in consideration of and comparison with their fellows, the overarching goal being the improvement of the precision and accuracy of understanding. That is the scientific method; the continual, evolving, ever more rigouous questioning of things and conditions.
Quote:I treat philosophy like Science.
Evidently; your argument certainly makes no distinction between the two, at any rate.
Quote:Science really is Natural Philosophy; they should never have gotten ridden of that name for it.
Science is not a philosophy, it is a discipline. However, a number of philosophers have had great impact on modern science, perhaps first among which would be
David Hume; though others abound, Hume's influence readilly is seen in the works of all the 18th and 19th Century forefathers of modern science - and beyond, even into today. Argument may be -abd is - made that Hume was the father not only of modern science but of modern philosophy. There long have been philosophers of science, as well, though scientists need not be - most generally are not - philosophers per se. Among more contemporary philosophers of science particularly signal in importance would be
Paul Feyerabend,
Thomas Kuhn, and
Karl Popper. "They", whoever "They" might be, "Got Rid Of" the concept of "Natural Philosophy" once and for all somewhere around the latter half of the
Victorian Era. Science and philosophy both have moved on some since then. If you hurry, you can still catch up with one or the other. If you try real hard, and you're real good, you just might get 'em both, but not many folks ever manage that, even without the handicap of a late, up-hill start.
