0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 26/03/2024 14:40:57Science doesn't suppose to be subjective. But it did change over time.Science is a process, which hasn't changed. Scientific knowledge has changed be cause the process is intentionally dynamic.
Science doesn't suppose to be subjective. But it did change over time.
Silvia Jonas explains how mathematics can be used to inform claims to moral truths.What does mathematics have to do with the nature of human thought? In what ways does it change how philosophers think of reality? Philosopher and author of 'Ineffability and its Metaphysics', Silvia Jonas explains how mathematics has come to shape our politics, ethics and our very ideas what the world is.
The process of science is intentionally dynamic.
The business of science thrives on progress and understanding. The business of philosophy is conflict.
Science was once a branch of philosophy, specifically looking for the explanation of natural phenomena.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2024 12:51:29Science was once a branch of philosophy, specifically looking for the explanation of natural phenomena.That's just in the minds of philosophers, who once asserted that ducks are fish and heavy things fall faster than light ones. It has been clearly recognised for the last 700 years that there is a difference between scientific knowledge and philosophical assertion.
The recursive procedure "observe, hypothesise, predict, test" is inherently dynamic because it doesn't include an endpoint. It does occasionally produce robust hypotheses that have survived several iterations and these are called "knowledge", but there's nothing inherently or intentionally static about them.
You don't seem to realize that Newton's book on mechanics has Natural Philosophy in its title.
The fact that it doesn't. Observe (or in the case of theology, don't observe), hypothesise, move on. Revile and persecute anyone who disagrees. Same as economics and politics.
There are no wrong answers in religion, philosophy, politics or economics. As any parasite will tell you, other people just ask the wrong questions.
But the converse is not true. Popularity is not correlated with accuracy.
No taxes, free beer for all. Massively popular, zero chance of success.
There are far more people wanting free beer and no taxes, than the sum of brewers and lawmakers. So popularity does not determine survivability. As many revolutionary governments (including that of Liz Truss) have discovered!