studiot

I agree there. Sharp being the operative word as I think that hardening a sharpened stick in a fire might have been one of the first scientific discoveries.

Thank you whoever like my post but I must admit a serious boo boo, rather worse than my frequent spelling errors. I meant to say What I see happening here is the attempt to apply the language, terminology and symbolism of one discipline to the language terminology and symbolism concepts of the other. I agree that both have sufficient stake in formal logic that some ptocesses may be directly transferred, even though the symbolism may be different. However for the concept 'truth' such a concept would (and does) take the form of rewriting DeMorgan, Karnaugh and so on in different notation. The concept of 'truth' you have offered in your post and I have highlighted fails for the same reason as I have already given in my example of the butterfly wingspan masurement. such terms as 'corresponds accurately' and 'state of affairs' are too wooly for Science. Both accurate and state have very specific meanings in Science.

Agreed it is 'reality' and 'true', which are the problems. Neither are scientific terms. Both Science and Philosophy have a commonality in that they have both developed a discipline specific language, terminology and symbolism. But that is as far as it goes because many if not most of the concepts these refer to only occur in their respctive disciplines. What I see happening here is the attempt to apply the language, terminology and symbolism of one discipline to the language terminology and symbolism of the other. It is not suprising to find that therefore that this fails because for instance the 'reality' and 'truth' of Philosophy, have no counterpart in Science.

How did the first man to 'do' the very first bit of Science learn Science ? I have already noted that I consider the very first bit of Science was likely to have been materials science.

I dunno, what am I thinking? That perhaps the only member who wants to discuss the OP is the member from stoned house.

Yay, you have gained something from the thread +1 So Gravity (or gravitation as the posh word) is a phenomenon that can exert a Newtonian force but it also has other properties. In particular it can affect time, which as far as we know, other Newtonian forces cannot do.

No since you are trying to show that describing reality is common to some part of Science and to Philosophy, yet the thread is about their differences, not their commonalities.

This would be the first time I have ever heard of learning as equivalent to reporting. That is stretching meanings and definitions too far in my opinion, just as before someone can experiment he must be born, get out of bed and so on. So by the above logic all these activities this must be included under experimentation.

I don't see where research, hypothesis, data analysis, observation, report, or testing come into it. Either you know how to synthesise this compound or you learn some Chemistry and find out.

The blue ones only come in six-packs.

Ask Alice or Dodds

I thought I explained how it does indeed 'describe the difference' ? Was there something that needs further explanation ?

That's rich when I have been saying that and keeptrying to bring the thread back to that opening question. In particular I have identified everything that is a difference between S and P, mathematically but no one (yourself included) seems interested. Anyway here is a Venn diagram to illustracte my point. If we take all that is Science (red S ring) and add all that is Philosophy (blue P ring) and subtract everything that is common to both (white lenticular shape) then what remains is everything that is different between Science and Philosophy (the combination of the red and blue lunes) Furthermore to avoid the impression that Science only consists of Physics, here is an example of something that definitely belong firmly in the red area. A scientist measures the wingspan of a red admiral butterfly. As far as I can tell this has no philosophical value at all, except that, along with my emboldened quote from Eise, it introduces a comment about the philosophy of Science. Eise says 'might be'. This is a very ill quantified statement. A Philosopher's statement (no offence intended) Science has developed several specific techniques for improving on such philosophical statements, indeed we have already seen one example that has again been ignored here. The contraction mapping (Banach) theorem. In the case of might be Science has developed probabiltiy and statistics theory. So the Scientist measuring his butterfly measurement is in a position to offer his measurement scientifically, within tolerance limits and perhaps as an average, perhaps compared in some way to a standard or other wingspans or in relation to a bodyweight to span ratio or whatever. Philosophers who seek truth do not work in this sort of context. So here are some major differences between S and P.

Instead of replying here, which would be off topic, I have started another thread

The thread was inspired by mention of the Scientific Method (SM) in another thread, where detailed discussion of the method would be off topic. Additionally it was inspired by the observation that the SM is all too often introduced as representing all of Science. Hence the title question here. Is the Scientific Method all there is to Science ? As a discussion starter example is the synthesis of this compound nothing to do with Science as it is clearly not part of the SM as outlined above. Or is it some other pat of Science?

Look here https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/documents/Tensors_TM2002211716.pdf

Sorry I don't understand your comment, please expand. Note there are several succeeding posts representing a discussion with swansont about this, culminating in my last post couched in set theory that everyone seems to want to ignore. The set theory one can also be expressed in English, logic theory in connective words (and or etc) , logic theory in symbols, and a geometrical representation as a Venn diagram.

I really don't see the relevence of this to the topic which is clearly stated What is the real difference between Science and Philosophy. Well we can do this in formal set theory Let S be the set of all matters Science and P be the set of all matter Philosophic Then the real or total difference is [math]S \cup P - S \cap P[/math] or if you prefer [math]\left| {S - P} \right| + \left| {P - S} \right|[/math] If you consider they have no matters in common (no overlap) then [math]S \cap P = \emptyset [/math] and the difference comprises the whole of Science and Philosophy combined.

Of course it is Science. I don't see the issue. Do you hold that something that is part of Science cannot also be part of Philosophy. Therefore there is no overlap ? There is Mathematics (and Physics and other Science) in Music, which is part of Art. Is there no overlap there ? But just as there is plenty of Maths, Science etc that is not Music and plenty of music that is not mathematically based, so knowing the principle of and atomic explosion will not by itself enable you to build a bomb. And I have already laid out my stall that modern philosophy is about the principles of other disciplines. IOW it is their principles that form the overlap.

The most famous counterexample to this would probably be Einstein and the solutions to his General Relativity Field Equations. Einstein had only one solution and was flabberghasted when other came up with more solutions, first De Sitter and then Friedmann etc.

I did say football didn't I ? Perhaps you understand it better as soccer. The bell rings as you kick it along the ground.

Really ? So why did you specifically exclude it ? At least you accede there is such a thing as philosophy of physics. The principle of creating a critical mass of fissionable material. I don't understand the allusion.

This would moral pholosophy of atom bombs, not the philosophy of the physics of atom bombs (which I specified). Glad you came up with an alternative example to mine to demonstrate this point.

A fine example of the difference that arises around the overlap between Physics and Philosophy would be the construction of an atom bomb. (Yes swans I am being provacative not calling it nuclear) The philosophy of how to build an atom bomb can be found in several boys own and other popular magazines. Yes the principles are all there but the articles would not enable anyone to build a successful bomb. You need the special extra physics knowledge that physicists would bring that was not and never has been part of philosophy. Just look at the number of (famous) specialists that were needed to bring the first one to fruition.

I was impressed to learn that the ball used in paralympic blind football contains a bell.