The problems with science

Sure, and I agree with that point. Arguing just to argue is something philosophers do.

can you let me know, who the hell is responsible for coining the "scientific method"??
I see methods that vary for the many disciplines.

Yayaya..

...and a couple more to put the nail in the coffin:

Well then, if we agree that there are philosophical ideas involved in any scientific theory, we agree that it is impossible to do science without also doing some philosophy. QED

I understand what your problem is: you have friends here and sometimes you try and defend them even when they say something inaccurate. Also, you have some credibility here as a chemist, and if it were to be proven that you have gotten a major chemistry-related point wrong -- such as on water "dissociating" in space -- or misrepresented past debates on scientific topics, your credibility could go down to the sink.

I don't expect you to act against your perceived interest, but I have no reason to act against mine either. So let us just part our ways, if you don't mind too much.

passing judgement on the validity of a discovery is pretty much self contained in
repeatability
predictbility
(mine) how far can we break it down before it loses its direction. (Im trying to talk that one up as a method of sustainability ad repeatability of a finding)



Would a philosopher who wasnt first educated and experienced in the science even be able to appreciate the significance of the above??? (like CGI artists who are part of the creative teams are usually artists , THEN CGI trained)

...and that's where often you find yourself within the realm of philosophical inquiry.

Sure.... you are making a big deal over the word "philosophy".

My philosophy in cooking is to always add salt to meat before applying heat. My philosophy in dating is to never go out with a co-worker. My philosophy in driving is never to let a jerk who has been tailgating me get in front of me.

The word "philosophy" can be used to denote any little quirk of how you do any task. If all we are arguing about is all about the meaning of the word "philosophy", it is kind of silly. I have philosophies about all kind of things.

The academic study of Philosophy (notice the capital 'P') is irrelevant to anything I have done in science. I took one elective in my university study (which in truth I found interesting). But I have never needed it in any way in the practice of science.

Fil says he actively rejects the scientific views on certain topics because they go against his philosophy. I don't think that is a good thing.

..the irony is that you may be starting to get somewhere by admitting the triviality of philosophical use.

Just to be balanced... I actively reject philosophical views that go against science... so I guess we are equal on that case.

In open topics in Philosophy of Science I have preferences and instincts not certainties but that is true for everyone else.

I agree. It appears that our disagreement with Max is semantic. He is talking about the present academic discipline. Which has gone to the dogs so he might be onto something there as well. Past philosophers had the decency not to fake it, present ones less so.

That may be because rationalism, empiricism, the usefulness of debate if premissed on the respect of others' positions, the universality of knowledge and other philosophical ideas underpinning science are now widely accepted and taken for granted. You don't need to study them, you just need to apply those principles and they work.

What the hell is the "universality of knowledge". I have a good science education, and I have worked in acadamia. I have never heard (or cared) about the Universality of Knowledge.

Maybe you could explain what it means in a way that makes sense to me (to be honest it sounds like nonsense). But in regards to science as done by scientists... it is completely irrelevant.

Similarly, the study of mechanics and combustion is not necessary to learn how to drive a car, though some of this knowledge might help to maintain the car, and the car could not have been built without them.

Agreed.

Psychology is related to the field of science... since scientists have brains. So are nutritionists since scientists eat. So are sociologists since scientists live in societies. I would lump philosophers in with them in the same way.

Science assumes a certain universality of knowledge, which means for instance that mathematics are supposed to be universal. An Indian mathematician, embedded in a very different culture than you and I, should still be able to agree with a mathematical theorem proven by, say, a Canadian mathematician.

The principle also underpins the practice of replicating experimental results, a key test of truth in science: if you do an experiment in the US and i do the exact same experiment in Europe, the results should be the same, otherwise there's something fishy somewhere.

I would disagree with the term "universality of knowledge", because knowledge assumes that it is dependent on human understanding (and these facts were facts long before humans existed). But I guess I understand the point.

Although in science if the experiments say that things work differently in Europe than they do in the US, we would accept the science (after more study) rather than the philosophical principle.

Scientists don't reject experimental results for philosophical principles.