Science

Into the Night said:
Wikipedia is not a valid source. You cannot use it with me. You cannot use Stanford either. They do not define philosophy.
Click to expand...

lol......tell you what.....show me even a source which is not "valid" besides your own incorrect assumptions which supports your claim.......provide me a link which says there is no "philosophy of science" but only "philosophy"......

by the way, Stanford may run the website that his works are published, but the source was Hegel.....his book, Lectures On The Philosophy of History, can be accessed at many places besides the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.....

https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tTP1TcwSTNIMjRg9JLNSE1PzVEvVijIyMzJL84vyKhUyE9TyMgsLskvqgQAE3kOOQ&q=hegel%27s+philosophy+of+history&rlz=1CAYGYA_enUS828US828&oq=hegels+ph&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j0l2j46l3j0l2.7698j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
lol......tell you what.....show me even a source which is not "valid" besides your own incorrect assumptions which supports your claim.......provide me a link which says there is no "philosophy of science" but only "philosophy"......

by the way, Stanford may run the website that his works are published, but the source was Hegel.....his book, Lectures On The Philosophy of History, can be accessed at many places besides the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.....

https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tTP1TcwSTNIMjRg9JLNSE1PzVEvVijIyMzJL84vyKhUyE9TyMgsLskvqgQAE3kOOQ&q=hegel%27s+philosophy+of+history&rlz=1CAYGYA_enUS828US828&oq=hegels+ph&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j0l2j46l3j0l2.7698j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...

The only source in a philosophical argument is yourself. There is no such thing as 'philosophy of history', 'philosophy of science', etc. There is just philosophy, or there is not.

History is past events. There is no philosophy about it.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no philosophy about it.
Religion is some initial circular argument with arguments extending from that. There is no philosophy about it.

There is just philosophy.
 
Into the Night said:
There is no such thing as 'philosophy of history'
Click to expand...
Hegel says fuck off.....

by the way, in college I had a double major - history and sociology with a minor in philosophy......if I could have squeezed in two more classes I would have had a triple major.......
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
The only source in a philosophical argument is yourself. There is no such thing as 'philosophy of history', 'philosophy of science', etc. There is just philosophy, or there is not.

History is past events. There is no philosophy about it.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no philosophy about it.
Religion is some initial circular argument with arguments extending from that. There is no philosophy about it.

There is just philosophy.
Click to expand...


You know nothing about philosophy.
 
BartenderElite said:
We've had a few thousand years of human history to evaluate this, and here's the scoop: science is a good thing. Without it, we've had periods like the Dark Ages. Science has saved a whole lotta people, given us an amazing standard of living, and for you space buffs out there, has even put us on the moon.

Real estate dudes don't really know science. They know real estate. Same with most other people who have expertise in a given area, but haven't really studied science, medicine or any other field in depth.

Let's keep going w/ science. It really is the better option.
Click to expand...
That post and false history is somewhat mythical and fictitious for so many reasons it's not worth getting into.

For example, contrary to popular myths, fables, and urban legends about the "moon landing", it likely had more to do with an arms race with the Soviet Union than anything else, much as how idiots superstitiously idolizing that can't name one thing that they benefited from in any way to begin with.

Likewise, outdated myths and fables about "the Dark Ages" are nonsense, the "Dark Ages" had nothing to do with "science" in the sense of a modern, institution based on a specific methodology of discovery, testing, and so forth (e.x. the inductive method invented by Sir Francis Bacon).

The "Dark Ages" simply marked a lack of innovation, not solely "scientific" but in other areas as well, such as arts - much as the characteristics of the "Dark Ages" could exist within the context of any era or institution, in which innovation is stymied (e.x. within the context of currently established scientific institutions, hostility to innovation or novelty could exist as well).

Likewise, a lot of the myths which falsely attribute inventions and living standards ambigiously to "science" (or Francis Bacon's specific method and institution thereof) are nonsense; for example, wealthy people in Ancient Rome's Golden Age had access to innovations like plumbing, much as ancient China invented gunpowder; things which weren't available to the average person as recent as, say, in the Great Depression of the 1920s.

(For that matter, Bacon's old scientific establishment invented in the 16th-17th century wasn't responsible for many modern innovations to begin with, much of that had more to do with the industrial revolution in the 19th century, which occured 300 years later).
 
MarcusA said:
That post and false history is somewhat mythical and fictitious for so many reasons it's not worth getting into.

For example, contrary to popular myths, fables, and urban legends about the "moon landing", it likely had more to do with an arms race with the Soviet Union than anything else, much as how idiots superstitiously idolizing that can't name one thing that they benefited from in any way to begin with.

Likewise, outdated myths and fables about "the Dark Ages" are nonsense, the "Dark Ages" had nothing to do with "science" in the sense of a modern, institution based on a specific methodology of discovery, testing, and so forth (e.x. the inductive method invented by Sir Francis Bacon).

The "Dark Ages" simply marked a lack of innovation, not solely "scientific" but in other areas as well, such as arts - much as the characteristics of the "Dark Ages" could exist within the context of any era or institution, in which innovation is stymied (e.x. within the context of currently established scientific institutions, hostility to innovation or novelty could exist as well).

Likewise, a lot of the myths which falsely attribute inventions and living standards ambigiously to "science" (or Francis Bacon's specific method and institution thereof) are nonsense; for example, wealthy people in Ancient Rome's Golden Age had access to innovations like plumbing, much as ancient China invented gunpowder; things which weren't available to the average person as recent as, say, in the Great Depression of the 1920s.

(For that matter, Bacon's old scientific establishment invented in the 16th-17th century wasn't responsible for many modern innovations to begin with, much of that had more to do with the industrial revolution in the 19th century, which occured 300 years later).
Click to expand...

Interesting. But it seemed you were contesting something. What was that?
 
Into the Night said:
The only source in a philosophical argument is yourself. There is no such thing as 'philosophy of history', 'philosophy of science', etc. There is just philosophy, or there is not.

History is past events. There is no philosophy about it.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no philosophy about it.
Religion is some initial circular argument with arguments extending from that. There is no philosophy about it.

There is just philosophy.
Click to expand...

Is this guy serious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top