freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 2:45pm:


Give me an example.

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 2:57pm:


The definition of the term 'experiment' is irrelevant. I was a research assistant in the field of phamaceutics for about a year after I first left university. Most of the work we did was simply testing a hypothesis.

Research is not as neatly packaged as you might think it is either. A lot of it starts off with hunches, and we perform a reality test on the hunch.

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 3:37pm:


So you're sticking rigidly to the Philosophy of Science, and specifically a somewhat controversial model proposed by Karl Popper, even though most scientists have never studied it, and regard it with total disdain. The two have never been easy bedfellows probably since "De Nuptiis Mercurio et Philologiae" was written by Martianus Capella just prior to the demise of the Roman Empire.

Maybe Science and Philosophy were meant to be star crossed lovers, but perhaps  the pseudoscience became too much to bear, and soon afterwards they drifted apart irresolutely, especially after Philosophia acquired a severe case of pox from her frequent fornication with Religioni. Science has steadfastly maintained the distance from that which is regarded as pseudoscience.

Certain embarrassing interludes in the 20th Century have served to maintain that distance. An example is provided in the works of that bastion of psychoanalysis, and champion of philosophers everywhere, Sigmund Freud.  Most scientists regard him more significantly for  his honorary PhD in Charlatanism, his Masters in Applied Obfuscatory Psychoquackery (MAOP) and his inimitable propensity for snake oil salesmanship.

My feeling is that your argument is probably not original, and that it deliberately exploits this (shall we say) uneasy contiguity that has always existed between philosophy and science. You're biting at the achilles heel, but in the case of Philosophy of Science, you're biting at a limb which has long since been amputated.

So your attack on Science through Philosophy is very much akin to  a militant atheist attack on Christianity via Santa Claus.

Quote:


I studied it in high school science. Of course, for the most part there is no need for scientists to even be aware of the philosophy of science. Even Thomas Kuhn takes this ciew.

Quote:


No they don't. Except of course for the ones who haven't studied it 

Quote:


Which is why evolution is not a scientific theory.

Quote:


Strawman.

Quote:


No it doesn't. You simply cannot use the tools of science to define science itself. The question of what is science is a philosophical question.

Quote:


This is not an attack on science. I am supporting science. It is the extremist evolutionists who are attacking it. Not the serious, informed academic ones, but the ignorant ones involved in the 'battle' with religion who don't mind sacrificing science for their cause.

Quote:


I offer logic instead. That is of far more value than argumentum ad populum. If you cannot think this through for yourself then there is no point resorting to appeals to authority.

Quote:


Except of course for calling 9itself natural history.

Quote:


Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. My argument stands on it's own merits, not on the merits of those who support or oppose it. It can never be resolved by resorting to that kind of argument.

Quote:


The definition I gave is adequate for this argument. Basically, everything beyond natural selection is unscientific, like beneficial mutation, universal common ancestry, the origin of the species etc.

Quote:


It is not arbitrary. Natural selection is a scientific theory.

Quote:


I didn't see what it had to do with this debate.

Quote:


It is a statement of logic. Just like you can't use an equation to define maths, you can't perform an experiment to define science.

Quote:


I am doing no such thing.

This has nothing to do with Frued. Judging philosophy by Frued is like judging science by the proponenets of ID. It is absurd to launch an attack on philosophy as a whole merely because you don't like what it has to say on one issue. You sound just like the global warming sceptics trying to discard science in general in order to give their view some validity.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2008 at 10:53am:


I wasn't judging Philosophy by Freud. I was merely giving one example of how there is this gulf between Philosophy and Science. You can leave old Sigmund out of it if you like.  All I'm saying is that he wasn't very helpful.