A child (Science) greater than its parent (Philosophy) ?

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I don't think that's quite what happened or how it happened. Rome didn't split from Greece; Rome conquered Greece, and being the less advanced civilization, destroyed much of its cultural refinement, while appropriating the bits they liked - just as they did from every conquered nation. It became a more powerful empire, because of its military might. 

 Thank you for your interest.

Did you read the whole thread, or just my introduction ?

I think you need to look further back in time than you perhaps realise.

Rome was founded on 21 April 753 BC under the name gens rumana, in that area of the italian peninsula coloured purple in my map, which came under Greek colonisation at that time. The name stems from the Etruscan, who were the principle inhabitants at that time.

This was towards the end of the bronze age in this area and times were turbulent for several hundred years, partly due to the spreading of iron weapons by the Halstadt culture south into Mediterranean lands.

Just as the British were initially more interested in India than the Americas, so the greeks were more interested in the eastern part of their developemnt and colonisation.

This left the italian colonies to develop on their own and finally, just as you say, they invaded and conquered a failing Greek empire about 150 BC

 

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Again, the real picture is a little more complicated and blurry. The ancient Greeks practiced some pretty sophisticated science - in astronomy, navigation, architecture, hygiene and medicine. Archimedes, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, Empedocles, Hippocrates II and many more, contributed substantially to the sciences that European Renaissance thinkers rediscovered after the dark ages.  They already had separate disciplines in higher education. Philosophy didn't exactly give birth to science; rather, all avenues of human inquiry were followed, concurrently, as far as the resources of the time allowed.

Much later, with a surge in human population and resource-exploitation, specialized studies branched off and grew into disciplines of their own, both in the sciences and humanities. 

Here is a wonderful introduction to how it all fits together in classical studies. https://www.classics.pitt.edu/research/ancient-philosophy-and-science

 

Neither the Greeks, nor the Romans used the word  'science'.

It did not in fact enter the English language directly but through medieval French between 1400 and 1600 AD.

But even then it had a different meaning.

As late as 1830, AD Herschel  was still writing papers and books on Natural Philosophy (meaning what we call Science).

 

 

Finally I used the word 'greater' not better or more civilised or something implying a value judgement.

Strictly greater means more extensive in some way, as I have already explained in a previous post.

Thank you for your linkI will look it up.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Quote

Just as the British were initially more interested in India than the Americas, so the greeks were more interested in the eastern part of their developemnt and colonisation.

Okay, I see what you mean by split... indirectly.

As for 'greater'; as long as it simply means 'bigger', we're in complete agreement. Just as the USA is much bigger than the UK - not counting imperial reach, because that would hard to measure - but not necessarily superior in any other way.

Quote

The Romans assimilated earlier Greek science for their own purposes, evaluating and then accepting or rejecting that which was most useful... https://www.worldhistory.org/Roman_Science/

Quote

Neither the Greeks, nor the Romans used the word  'science'.

I can see that. The Greek 'episteme' covers all kinds of knowledge, while the Latin 'scientia' sounds right, and gives us the linguistic template, but was still too inclusive to fit perfectly. In any case, I don't see how a much later convention of nomenclature and classification changes the actual situation of the time. The Greeks already had Physics, Geometry, Astronomy and Medicine as discrete disciplines, and a number of quite notable experts in each. 

That's quite an interesting article, btw.

Quote

 

Quote

It did not in fact enter the English language directly but through medieval French between 1400 and 1600 AD.

England and France don't come into it until the Christian churches had done a huge amount of damage to knowledge of all kinds. How they eventually came by science is a fascinating story, but doesn't affect the previous time-line.

PS I'm having the devil's own time with the quote function. If this is messed up, it's because I'm a techno-klutz.

 

 

 

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Peterkin said:

PS I'm having the devil's own time with the quote function. If this is messed up, it's because I'm a techno-klutz.

Rule 25, subsection Z, paragraph 1025 of this forum states.

The better you are as Science, the more the quote function handicaps you.

🙂

[Peterkin]

Thank you.

[Gees]

Hello Studiot;

It has been a long time.

My thought is that science has always been a part of philosophy. 50,000 years ago, if someone had an idea and they did an experiment to see if the idea was valid, they were working science -- even if they did not call it science. I think science was defined as a separate discipline in the 17th century, (maybe by Galileo?) who worked out and defined the scientific method.

As to which is greater, philosophy or science, it does not strike me as a valid question. It reminds me of the question, which is greater man or woman, which I always found to be kind of funny, as they are interdependent. Philosophy and science are also interdependent. Philosophy works to validate it's premise and puts faith in the beginning of a process; science works to validate it's testing and puts faith in the ending of a process; both are necessary to produce good results.

For example: I was talking to my doctor just the other day and he was explaining about cranberry juice. Years ago, I had told him that I drank cranberry juice to relieve a bladder infection and he told me that it was an old wives tale and that cranberry juice had been tested and did nothing to bacteria and therefore did not help to get rid of an infection. When the subject came up again, he apologized and explained that a fortune had been dumped into the testing of cranberries with the thought being that a new medicine could be synthesized once the testing proved its validity -- but it had failed, repeatedly. Eventually it was learned that cranberries could not neutralize bacteria and could not fight bacteria, but could make the walls of the bladder slick so that the bacteria slid off and washed out, thereby disposing of the infection.

If the testing is good, careful, and valid, but the premise is invalid, then the science turns into crap. If the premise is good, carefully considered, and valid, but testing shows negative results, then no matter how well thought out, the philosophy is crap. They are interdependent.

Gee

[studiot]

11 hours ago, Gees said:

Hello Studiot;

It has been a long time.

Yes, welcome back.

11 hours ago, Gees said:

For example: I was talking to my doctor just the other day and he was explaining about cranberry juice. Years ago, I had told him that I drank cranberry juice to relieve a bladder infection and he told me that it was an old wives tale and that cranberry juice had been tested and did nothing to bacteria and therefore did not help to get rid of an infection. When the subject came up again, he apologized and explained that a fortune had been dumped into the testing of cranberries with the thought being that a new medicine could be synthesized once the testing proved its validity -- but it had failed, repeatedly. Eventually it was learned that cranberries could not neutralize bacteria and could not fight bacteria, but could make the walls of the bladder slick so that the bacteria slid off and washed out, thereby disposing of the infection.

Tahnk you so much for this anecdote, +1

Do you have a reference to the mechanical action of cranberry juice ?

I have expressed the opinion that medical science to often ignores the mechancial in favour of the chemical.

Discussion of that would be a topic in its own right (if you wish).

 

11 hours ago, Gees said:

If the testing is good, careful, and valid, but the premise is invalid, then the science turns into crap. If the premise is good, carefully considered, and valid, but testing shows negative results, then no matter how well thought out, the philosophy is crap. They are interdependent.

Like the things that you're liable
To read in the bible

It ain't necessarily so.

A good counter example would be the production of high quality concrete.

 

11 hours ago, Gees said:

My thought is that science has always been a part of philosophy. 50,000 years ago, if someone had an idea and they did an experiment to see if the idea was valid, they were working science -- even if they did not call it science. I think science was defined as a separate discipline in the 17th century, (maybe by Galileo?) who worked out and defined the scientific method.

As to which is greater, philosophy or science, it does not strike me as a valid question. It reminds me of the question, which is greater man or woman, which I always found to be kind of funny, as they are interdependent. Philosophy and science are also interdependent. Philosophy works to validate it's premise and puts faith in the beginning of a process; science works to validate it's testing and puts faith in the ending of a process; both are necessary to produce good results.

 

I have explained several times in this thread that 'greater' does not mean better. It means 'of larger size' that by some measure or other.

What do you think Great Britain means ?

 

In the case of Science outgrowing Philosophy, I suggest the scope and extent of scientific knowledge now well exceeds that of philosophic.
However I note you argument about beginnings and endings and find that interesting enough to be worth further amplification.

One point about you neolithic 'scientist'. It is not enough to "do an experiment" to be counted as Science.
That experiment must be systematic and preferably part of a series of expeiments.

Over to you.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

What do you think Great Britain means ?

Inflated imperial ego? I know the question wasn't meant for me, but I couldn't resist.

Great is one of those flexible words with no absolute limit. Most adjectives are POV dependent, but those pertaining to magnitude [eg] are especially hard to define.

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Inflated imperial ego? I know the question wasn't meant for me, but I couldn't resist.

Great is one of those flexible words with no absolute limit. Most adjectives are POV dependent, but those pertaining to magnitude [eg] are especially hard to define.

I didn't think you as someone who jumped to conclusions.

 

Britain is one (the largest) of the British Isles.

The island of Britain used to host several separate Kingdoms

Great Britain refers to the country formed from the last separate kingdoms on the island of britain.

The full official title of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

There remain several semi autonomous states in the British isles apart from Eire.

[Peterkin]

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

Great Britain refers to the country formed from the last separate kingdoms on the island of britain.

Amazing! Did Arthur have a sword in that unification?

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Amazing! Did Arthur have a sword in that unification?

After the Romans left, Britannia broke into fragments.

What is now northern Scotland became part of the kingdom of Norway.

Wales and south westen Scotland (Glasgow area) became one celtic kingdom.

South east Scotland and most of northen England became the Kingdom of Northumbria.

Central England became the Kingdom of Mercia

Central Southern and Southwest England became the Kingdom of Wessex.

South Eastern England didn't have a particular name.

Following the Norman conquest the Normans united all the english kingdoms and Wales, leaving Scotland separate (except it was not then called Scotland)

At this time a group of those living in central eastern Scotland gained effewctive control of their area and slowly annexed the rest of Scotland by force.

The original name was the Kingdom of Alba.

 

Roll on 5 centuries and Elizabeth first had nor heirs so after some failed relatives as monarch, James VI of Scotland was invited to ascend the throne of England as well.

The two countries were not formally united for more than another century by the Act of Union.

[Peterkin]

Very informative!

[beecee]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

After the Romans left, Britannia broke into fragments.

What is now northern Scotland became part of the kingdom of Norway.

Wales and south westen Scotland (Glasgow area) became one celtic kingdom.

South east Scotland and most of northen England became the Kingdom of Northumbria.

Central England became the Kingdom of Mercia

Central Southern and Southwest England became the Kingdom of Wessex.

South Eastern England didn't have a particular name.

Following the Norman conquest the Normans united all the english kingdoms and Wales, leaving Scotland separate (except it was not then called Scotland)

At this time a group of those living in central eastern Scotland gained effewctive control of their area and slowly annexed the rest of Scotland by force.

The original name was the Kingdom of Alba.

 

Roll on 5 centuries and Elizabeth first had nor heirs so after some failed relatives as monarch, James VI of Scotland was invited to ascend the throne of England as well.

The two countries were not formally united for more than another century by the Act of Union.

Interesting. I wouldn't mind picking up on the history of Great Britian and Ireland. 

[Prometheus]

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Interesting. I wouldn't mind picking up on the history of Great Britian and Ireland. 

I recommend this podcast channel:

 

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Amazing! Did Arthur have a sword in that unification?

Since this thread is going off off on tangents here's a good one: Henry VII and Elizabeth I both claimed a lineage that can be traced back to Aphrodite of Greek mythology.

Both monarchs, and others, claimed they were related to King Arthur - thought then to be a historical figure. Arthur himself is said to be from the line of Brutus of Troy (which is where Geoffrey of Monmouth claims Britain got its name), a grandson of Aeneas who was the son of Aphrodite. 

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Prometheus said:

I recommend this podcast channel:

 

Since this thread is going off off on tangents here's a good one: Henry VII and Elizabeth I both claimed a lineage that can be traced back to Aphrodite of Greek mythology.

Both monarchs, and others, claimed they were related to King Arthur - thought then to be a historical figure. Arthur himself is said to be from the line of Brutus of Troy (which is where Geoffrey of Monmouth claims Britain got its name), a grandson of Aeneas who was the son of Aphrodite. 

Thank you for that link. +1

It is worth mentioning that the full programme is about 3 1/2 hours long but interesting nevertheless.

The first 20 minutes offer a great companion summary to the emergence of early kingdoms in England in the timeslot (250 years) indicated but for more detail.

I looked for the mid 6th century cold snap but couldn't find anything as dramatic as suggested in the video.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/600bc.htm

The programme also discusses events much further afield, covering Europe and into Asia.

 

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Interesting. I wouldn't mind picking up on the history of Great Britian and Ireland. 

Here is a good compact verified souce written by a reliable historian and published just before Brexit in 2019.

Unlike the dry list of dates and events (they are included but not prominent) so often found in formal history books, there is much sound analysis of causes and results, including many maps of disposition at different times.

Approximately the last 2000 years is covered.

Ireland is also included as are the rest of the British Isles.

 

 

[Gees]

On 8/11/2021 at 1:02 PM, studiot said:

Yes, welcome back.

Sorry it took me so long to respond. We had a bad storm and more than 300,000 people were without electricity for about a week. I still have pieces of a hundred year old maple tree strewn across my backyard where the electric company left it after cutting it off the power lines. 

Quote

 

Tahnk you so much for this anecdote, +1

Do you have a reference to the mechanical action of cranberry juice ?

 

No. Just what the doctor told me, but I have no reason to doubt him. I do remember that 40 or 50 years ago, Ocean Spray, cranberry juice had a note on its label that it was "partners in a kidney foundation". I always assumed that this was because of the "old wives tale", but that notice was removed a good 30 years ago. I assume that the removal of that notice coincided with the scientific testing that showed that cranberry juice did not fight bladder infections.

I have no references and am not even sure if cranberry juice causing bacterial infections to slide off the walls of the bladder is a mechanical or chemical effect. You would need a scientist to figure that out -- I just keep cranberry juice in my cupboard.

Quote

 

I have expressed the opinion that medical science to often ignores the mechancial in favour of the chemical.

Discussion of that would be a topic in its own right (if you wish).

Generally speaking, I don't agree because physical therapy and surgery would not be part of medical science if mostly the chemical were considered. In my mind, only in psychology and psychiatry is the chemical too dominant in treatments.

 

Quote

 

Like the things that you're liable
To read in the bible

It ain't necessarily so.

 

Not sure why you are referencing this -- the Bible is a history book(s). I have never read any history book that does not contain lies. Do you have a point?

 

Quote

 

I have explained several times in this thread that 'greater' does not mean better. It means 'of larger size' that by some measure or other.

What do you think Great Britain means ?

 

Well, whether "Great Britain", "The United Kingdom", or "The sun never sets on the British Empire", I think that it means that England thinks very well of itself.

If you think that science fits the description of greater now, then you would have to agree that religion fit that description 1,000 year ago. Is that what you think?

Philosophy is the study of knowledge, truth, and wisdom. Science and religion have both created methodologies to find their own knowledge and truths, which would be why they are both children of philosophy. 

 

Quote

In the case of Science outgrowing Philosophy, I suggest the scope and extent of scientific knowledge now well exceeds that of philosophic.

Kind of like a teenager, who thinks he knows more than his parents?

 

Quote

However I note you argument about beginnings and endings and find that interesting enough to be worth further amplification.

Not sure what you want here. Philosophy deals in truths, science deals in facts. Can facts exist without truths? No.

 

Quote

One point about you neolithic 'scientist'. It is not enough to "do an experiment" to be counted as Science.
That experiment must be systematic and preferably part of a series of expeiments.

Agreed. I did not state that they were doing science, what I stated was that they were working science; maybe I should have said working at science. Just as thinking is not doing philosophy, but it is a start.

Gee

[studiot]

17 hours ago, Gees said:

Sorry it took me so long to respond. We had a bad storm and more than 300,000 people were without electricity for about a week. I still have pieces of a hundred year old maple tree strewn across my backyard where the electric company left it after cutting it off the power lines. 

 

Yes we heard about your storm on our news. My sympathies.

 

17 hours ago, Gees said:

Not sure why you are referencing this -- the Bible is a history book(s). I have never read any history book that does not contain lies. Do you have a point?

 

Well I'm sorry you did not pick up my light hearted way to offer a counter example to your absolute claim.

"It ain't necessarily so"  is a famous song and part of the lyrics originally from Gershwin, but covered by several popular artists since.

https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/6009935/George+Gershwin/It+Ain't+Necessarily+So+[From+Porgy+and+Bess]

 

Perhaps if also read (and answered) the actual counterexample you would understand.

 

17 hours ago, Gees said:

Well, whether "Great Britain", "The United Kingdom", or "The sun never sets on the British Empire", I think that it means that England thinks very well of itself.

If you think that science fits the description of greater now, then you would have to agree that religion fit that description 1,000 year ago. Is that what you think?

Philosophy is the study of knowledge, truth, and wisdom. Science and religion have both created methodologies to find their own knowledge and truths, which would be why they are both children of philosophy. 

 

Well if you can't or won't understand your own language, I can't help it.

I have already explained the meaning of the word 'great', which goes back to Saxon times and is still used in that context to this day.

For example there are two villages in the Chilterns distinguished by the words great and little.

Great Missenden and Little Missenden. These are actually older than England itself!

When I lived in Greater London, I lived in the London Borough of Brent. There were then more people in Brent than in the whole of the County Somerset, where I live now.
Indeed there were more people in Brent than in most of the cities in the UK. Yet is is a medium sized entity making up a small part of what was known as Greater London.
Grater London comprised two cities and up to 35 boroughs. The City of London, the City of Westminster and the rest of the London Boroughs.

As a matter of interest why do you think your own Great Lakes are so called ?
Could it be because they are very large lakes (though not the largest in the world) ?
And do you consider Lake Superior to be somehow better than the others ?
Or is it again a geographic term ?

 

17 hours ago, Gees said:

Not sure what you want here. Philosophy deals in truths, science deals in facts. Can facts exist without truths? No.

 

Can you explain the difference between truths and facts ?

 

17 hours ago, Gees said:

Generally speaking, I don't agree because physical therapy and surgery would not be part of medical science if mostly the chemical were considered. In my mind, only in psychology and psychiatry is the chemical too dominant in treatments.

 

Nowhere did I say or indicate 'dominant in any part of medical science'

I was complimenting you on offering a mechanical explanation, when chemical explanations failed.
And merely observing that this was not the only example of such happening in medical science.

Digestion actually offers several examples to do with diet:

Roughage, for instance is often neglected in diet. Cotton wool sandwiches are sometime prescribed.

 

17 hours ago, Gees said:

Agreed. I did not state that they were doing science, what I stated was that they were working science; maybe I should have said working at science. Just as thinking is not doing philosophy, but it is a start.

 

I have never heard of someone 'working Science' so my best guess was doing Science. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

 

 

 

I still maintain that science now deals with more facts or truths (if they are different)  than Philosophy.

Since you like to introduce value judgements into Philosophy, would Philosophy be interested in the distance between the 53rd and 54th branches on my next-door-but-one neighbour's apple tree ?

I don't think this distance (which must have a value and so must be a fact) is of any philosophical interest.

But it could be of scientific interest as data for some project.

Just as my counterexample of the production of high quality concrete offered in my last post.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I still maintain that science now deals with more facts or truths (if they are different)  than Philosophy.

The only question remains, which is greater...

[beecee]

 

Science is what we know; Philosophy is what we don't know.

Bertrand Russell:

But still both very important....

Science gives us explanations, data and knowledge about the Universe. It gives us the how and even the why.

Philosophy is more or less based on an ideology that may or may not benefit a society and in gaining wisdom and establishing ethics to hopefully make for a better society.

Without science, philosophical questions may never be answered.

Without a foundation of good philosophical ethics, science may lack direction.

[Gees]

On 8/26/2021 at 8:03 AM, studiot said:

Well I'm sorry you did not pick up my light hearted way to offer a counter example to your absolute claim.

"It ain't necessarily so"  is a famous song and part of the lyrics originally from Gershwin, but covered by several popular artists since.

https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/6009935/George+Gershwin/It+Ain't+Necessarily+So+[From+Porgy+and+Bess]

Perhaps if also read (and answered) the actual counterexample you would understand.

I think we are both having trouble understanding each other. It may be that I did not recognize your offer of a counter example to my absolute claim, because I did not make an absolute claim -- at least in my mind. There are very few things in reality that are absolute, so I was talking about a general understanding of how things work.

If you take a hundred year old science book and a fifty year old science book, and a current science book on the same subject, you will find some differences over time in what science finds to be factual or true.  Some subjects will have little or no change, others will have a lot of change. This is usually because the subjects with a lot of change found that false assumptions caused the flawed science, or you could say a false premise caused the flawed science, or you could say the flawed philosophy caused the flawed science. This is what I meant when I stated that without (good) philosophy, the science can turn to crap.

It is possible that a scientist's experiment is flawed; it is also possible that the scientist is deceitful in his/her reports, but I find that mostly this is not "necessarily so". Mostly it is a false assumption or bad premise that screws up the science, which means bad or flawed philosophy.

I like all of Gershwin's music.

Quote

 

Well if you can't or won't understand your own language, I can't help it.

I have already explained the meaning of the word 'great', which goes back to Saxon times and is still used in that context to this day.

For example there are two villages in the Chilterns distinguished by the words great and little.

Great Missenden and Little Missenden. These are actually older than England itself!

When I lived in Greater London, I lived in the London Borough of Brent. There were then more people in Brent than in the whole of the County Somerset, where I live now.
Indeed there were more people in Brent than in most of the cities in the UK. Yet is is a medium sized entity making up a small part of what was known as Greater London.
Grater London comprised two cities and up to 35 boroughs. The City of London, the City of Westminster and the rest of the London Boroughs.

As a matter of interest why do you think your own Great Lakes are so called ?
Could it be because they are very large lakes (though not the largest in the world) ?
And do you consider Lake Superior to be somehow better than the others ?
Or is it again a geographic term ?

 

Great(er) is a word that is used comparatively. Look at your examples above to see the truth of this, so it is a word that is all about opinion. You are asking for opinions in this thread and then making the assumption that the opinion is in some way relative to the truth or fact of the matter. It is not.

 

Quote

Can you explain the difference between truths and facts ?

Whole threads have been devoted to explaining this, so I doubt that I can explain the difference, but I can tell you that truth is subjective and facts are objective.
 

Quote

 

Nowhere did I say or indicate 'dominant in any part of medical science'

I was complimenting you on offering a mechanical explanation, when chemical explanations failed.
And merely observing that this was not the only example of such happening in medical science.

Digestion actually offers several examples to do with diet:

Roughage, for instance is often neglected in diet. Cotton wool sandwiches are sometime prescribed.

 

Cotton wool sandwiches? Are you serious? I don't think that I could eat something like that and hope I never have to.

No. I am the one who used the word "dominant" because I see it as a problem in psychology/psychiatry. I see this as a left over problem from the monism v dualism nonsense, which causes science to treat consciousness like a problem that has to be treated with chemicals.

 

Quote

I have never heard of someone 'working Science' so my best guess was doing Science. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Not a problem. I look at things a little differently, probably because of my studies of consciousness. I refuse to accept that the study is about either religion/"God" or about the human brain. But if one eliminates both of those things, what is there to study? How it works -- so that is what I study -- how things work.

 

Quote

 

I still maintain that science now deals with more facts or truths (if they are different)  than Philosophy.

Since you like to introduce value judgements into Philosophy, would Philosophy be interested in the distance between the 53rd and 54th branches on my next-door-but-one neighbour's apple tree ?

I don't think this distance (which must have a value and so must be a fact) is of any philosophical interest.

But it could be of scientific interest as data for some project.

 

More facts or truths? Are we counting them? So more is better, or more is greater?

Well distance, measure, numbers, and trees are of philosophical interest.

 

Quote

Just as my counterexample of the production of high quality concrete offered in my last post.

I don't know a damned thing about "the production of high quality concrete", so I did not respond. Is there a point that is relative to this thread?

Gee

[beecee]

25 minutes ago, Gees said:

If you take a hundred year old science book and a fifty year old science book, and a current science book on the same subject, you will find some differences over time in what science finds to be factual or true.  Some subjects will have little or no change, others will have a lot of change. This is usually because the subjects with a lot of change found that false assumptions caused the flawed science, or you could say a false premise caused the flawed science, or you could say the flawed philosophy caused the flawed science.

Science advances as technology allows for further and further observations and the data that it entails. Best examples of that are that in the early fifities, Mercury was thought of as the smallest planet, then in the next decade we found that to be invalid. In fact it is Pluto, until in more recent times, Pluto was demoted to a dwarf planet along with some of the asteroids. We also at one time believed that the Milky Way was it. Further observations showed that to be wrong. 

 

[Gees]

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

Science advances as technology allows for further and further observations and the data that it entails. Best examples of that are that in the early fifities, Mercury was thought of as the smallest planet, then in the next decade we found that to be invalid. In fact it is Pluto, until in more recent times, Pluto was demoted to a dwarf planet along with some of the asteroids. We also at one time believed that the Milky Way was it. Further observations showed that to be wrong. 

Yes, that is a good example. Another might be the discovery of pheromones. Science thought that trees communicated along their root systems because it was obvious that communication happened, and it was not otherwise tracible. In the 1960's we discovered pheromones and realized that trees were communicating through the air, which solved that mystery. But then we learned that all multi-celled species communicate with pheromones (pheromones communicate more than just sex) and there is a whole world of communication that goes on in a forest or any ecosystem. This is probably how an ecosystem stays in balance, or at least it is part of the solution. 

I don't know why, but most of the people in the science forums have the general idea that philosophy does not observe, or they think that if the observation is done through technology, then it is not relevant to philosophy. This is not true. Without observation, I don't think there would be philosophy, or science.

Gee

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

If you take a hundred year old science book and a fifty year old science book, and a current science book on the same subject, you will find some differences over time in what science finds to be factual or true.  Some subjects will have little or no change, others will have a lot of change. This is usually because the subjects with a lot of change found that false assumptions caused the flawed science, or you could say a false premise caused the flawed science, or you could say the flawed philosophy caused the flawed science. This is what I meant when I stated that without (good) philosophy, the science can turn to crap.

These statements were qualified eg 'can turn to crap'

Before your statements

On 8/11/2021 at 6:17 AM, Gees said:

If the testing is good, careful, and valid, but the premise is invalid, then the science turns into crap. If the premise is good, carefully considered, and valid, but testing shows negative results, then no matter how well thought out, the philosophy is crap. They are interdependent.

were unqualified ie they were absolute, despite your protestation to the contrary.

If valid, that means they must apply to all Science and All Philosophy.

Now I offered you a counterexample concerning concrete and you eventually say

1 hour ago, Gees said:

I don't know a damned thing about "the production of high quality concrete", so I did not respond. Is there a point that is relative to this thread?

Whilst claiming there was no counterexample, instead of asking what I meant if you don't know a dammed thing about that subject.

Is that good Philosophy or godd Science or what ?

1 hour ago, Gees said:

It may be that I did not recognize your offer of a counter example to my absolute claim, because I did not make an absolute claim -- at least in my mind.

 

Now I actually made it quite as plain as I could that I was offering a counterexample by writing underneath the second quote of your work in this post

On 8/11/2021 at 6:02 PM, studiot said:

A good counter example would be the production of high quality concrete.

 

 

However since you don't understand concrete (nothing wrong with that, there's lot's of things I don't understand) and also since you have ameliorated your original absolute statement to a more qualified status I will offer you a different counter example to both.

For most of human history Astronomy and Astro navigation has rested on a false premise, yet functioned extremely well and continues to do so to this day, even after the premise was corrected by Copernicus.
Science continues to work with the known-to-be-false premise of the astral sphere because it produces such accurate results so easily compared to the work of measuring or calculating the real situation.

 

There are in fact many such known false models in daily use in Science for much the same reasons.

[beecee]

30 minutes ago, Gees said:

I don't know why, but most of the people in the science forums have the general idea that philosophy does not observe, or they think that if the observation is done through technology, then it is not relevant to philosophy. This is not true. Without observation, I don't think there would be philosophy, or science.

Gee

Personally, I see philosophy as having laid down the groundwork for science to adhere by, and thereby holds a respected position. but like Lawrence Krauss' recent account, I think it now in many respects has been absorbed by science and scientific endeavours anyway.eg: A universe from nothing and the redefining of nothing...the only scientific answer to life, being abiogenesis. 

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Personally, I see philosophy as having laid down the groundwork for science to adhere by, and thereby holds a respected position. but like Lawrence Krauss' recent account, I think it now in many respects has been absorbed by science and scientific endeavours anyway.eg: A universe from nothing and the redefining of nothing...the only scientific answer to life, being abiogenesis. 

It's a good job that Science does not follow those Greek Philosophers (Plato) who believed that we should adopt as groundwork our imaginary notion of perfectionand claim it is the universe's fault if our observations do not follow our imaginings.

 

[geordief]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

It's a good job that Science does not follow those Greek Philosophers (Plato) who believed that we should adopt as groundwork our imaginary notion of perfectionand claim it is the universe's fault if our observations do not follow our imaginings.

 

I am sure the Greek philosophers would have kept up to speed with  the latest findings and debunking.

Had  we  been alive in their era we would quite likely  have been astounded by their good sense.