The problems with science

It seems I have to repeat what Olivier told you already and you failed to grasp... the scientific method itself is a by-product of Philosophy rational it didn't spawn itself out of nothing...sheeesh for the nonsense one has to endure in this forsaken place!

Galileo was a scientist. His inquisitors were Philosophers. E pur si muove.

I gave you that point Fil.

Astronomy is a science. Astrology is a Philosophy. Astronomy is a "by-product" of astrology (historically the first astronomers were motivated by astrology). When your friend Aristotle stated that the Earth was the center of the Universe he wasn't making a scientific statement. He didn't base this belief on any experiment; he didn't propose any way to test it. This belief was a philosophical belief based on his ideas about the place of human beings in his conception of the Universe.

In spite of the history it is incorrect to say that Astronomy is a form of Astrology. And it is incorrect to say that science is a form of Philosophy.

Astrology is bad Philosophy, Astronomy, through the scientific method, is a good one...That said I am sure there is no lack of yogurt science thesis around as far as I can tell.

What is the difference between good philosophy and bad philosophy?

There is an objective standard for good science, good science is testable and repeatable. If two scientific ideas come forward, there is a definitive way to decide this one is right and this one is wrong.

Under Aristotle, the Earth was the center of the Universe. Was this good philosophy or bad philosophy? If it turned out that his ideas of a geocentric universe were scientifically correct... would that change your answer?

Why do you go back 2000 years to mock Philosophy? Are you aware that all the good Science was mostly done by Philosophers themselves...not just that but remaining big topics like the ether, cosmological constant, etc all were discussed way back before the scientific method was well established...science is just monkey hard work done by college graduates slaved by some big buck old fox. You don't need to be smart to make good science, you just need to apply the method and brute force solve the problem, often expending millions more than you had to if you were more philosophy savvy.

I will answer my own question...

I don't think Aristotle was a bad philosopher. He was expressing a system of ideas based on his values and ideas of the place of human beings in the Universe.

Aristotle was a horrible scientist. He was stating ideas as absolute facts without any testing or experimentation. He happened to be wrong on many of the things he said (from mechanics to astronomy to biology), but that is irrelevant. His sin was confusing philosophy (ideas based on his ideas of beauty and abstract truth) with science (which should be based on measurement and experiment).

compared to who?

I am really curious about what you think the "ether" is.... I am surprised you bring that up, that is an example where Philosophy was overturned by science. It was an experiment, Michelson-Morely, that overturned the idea of the "aether", and the experimenters were expecting to get the opposite result.

The philosophers said that the aether existed... and so the scientists checked and found that it didn't. Which is my point about the difference between philosophy and science.

Well space is not really empty, is it? From gluons to Hawking radiation, virtual particles pairs, etc the very fabric of space is not nothingness, a vacuum is not an actual complete void. Eventually, aether might not be what initially was thought about, but I am more inclined to believe there is one since waves like light need a medium to propagate themselves just like sound waves propagate on air.

This is the problem with mixing philosophy and science. You are making this statement about what you are "inclined to believe". You aren't talking about the actual experiments, or the mathematics or any way to test your ideas objectively.

You are just taking what you feel is right and looking for anything to support your beliefs. This might be good philosophy, but it is undeniably bad science.

You using a random pseudo-science video you found on YouTube as proof of what?

This video is not science.

It is not proof of, it's good questioning, and one that science does!

Sigh...

You started out by arguing that good science is actually a form of philosophical inquiry. I don't think this is a completely absurd notion, although I do think it is wrong. I was pushing back on your original argument by pointing out the science is based on ideas that are objectively testable and repeatable, something distinctly different from philosophy.

Now you have fallen into the trap of arguing bad science from some fringe guy you found on the internet (I did check). It isn't science. Science (unlike philosophy) provides objectively testable facts meaning that statements in science are objectively right or wrong.

If you are arguing that the "aether" as defined by philsophers and disproved in the late 1800s now exists, you are objectively wrong. I can point out multiple experiments since Michelson Morley that prove you are wrong.

If you are simply redefining the term "aether" so some absurd concept to win an argument, I can't say you are wrong (because terms with no set definition have no meaning and can't be tested)... but I can say you are being silly.

Really so you don't address any point I have made??? How does light waves propagate themselves please answer? how about gravity waves? Do you think space is really empty? What is aether we do not know yet, but there is good reasoning to investigate further. Again I am not trying to prove aether exist just saying the matter is not settled, please don't confuse my terms!!!

Frack this I give you a Nobel to talk on the topic of what space is...

You are confusing philosophy with science, they are really quite different. Science only answers questions that are testable. You are questions that are meaningless scientifically.

In order for it to be a scientific question, it has to be defined in a way that is measurable mathematically... so that it can be used to make predictions. If you can't test your answers by making predictions then it isn't science.

Your first question, for example "how do light waves propagate". A scientist will answer that question starting with Maxwell's equations and moving onto General Relativity (and if you specified the question better you might get an answer dealing with manifolds and quantum noise). But it really isn't a scientific question. If a Physicist ever submitted a paper on "how do light wave propagate" they would be laughed out of the profession.

You want science to be philosophy. But you are demonstrating why it is not.

Do all philosophers argue by google search? It isn't a very intelligent way to have a discussion.

Well, thank you for admitting there is a medium finally you got to where I previously was when referring to quantum noise...just so is on the record I talked about Hawking's radiation, virtual particle pairs, and gluons...
Again, a vacuum has density has it not?

Take note the first working aircraft was designed by two bike shop owners who became self taught engineers not scientists.

The scientist Samuel P. Langley in the story who was back by a large grant from the US government attempted aircraft ended up in the Potomac river after being launch by catapult from a house boat.