[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Science 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.

The same thing can also be said about morality. Some moral rules are more flexible to cultural changes due to advancement in technology, some of them are more rigid/static.
With more data and accumulated knowledge, sciences and moralities has tendency to converge. Some just adopt the new knowledge faster than the others.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Imagine You Are a Moral Realist

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.

IMO, morality, philosophy, logics, mathematics, science and technology are all tools to achieve the universal terminal goal. There are many known societies in the past, some went extinct, while some are still exist today. Their survival depends on how they use those tools in alignment with the survival of their successors according to their internal and environmental conditions.

[alancalverd]

There's a big difference. The process of science is intentionally dynamic. I'm not aware of any product of philosophy (of which religion is the most dangerous and demeaning example) that claims to be other than absolute, or stands up to experimental scrutiny.

The business of science thrives on progress and understanding. The business of philosophy is conflict.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The process of science is intentionally dynamic.

Not necessarily. Science is intended to describe physical reality in the most accurate and precise way possible, based on known observations. It's unreasonable to make it inherently dynamic when new observations can still be explained by existing scientific models.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[alancalverd]

Science 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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Science 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.

You don't seem to realize that Newton's book on mechanics has Natural Philosophy in its title.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

What makes you think that the same process can't take place in philosophy?

[alancalverd]

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.

[alancalverd]

You don't seem to realize that Newton's book on mechanics has Natural Philosophy in its title.

Like the only newspapers in Soviet Russia were titled "Peace" and "Truth".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

If your science don't work, then you are using the wrong science. The same goes for philosophy, economics and politics.

[alancalverd]

There are no wrong answers in religion, philosophy, politics or economics.  As any parasite will tell you, other people just ask the wrong questions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There are no wrong answers in religion, philosophy, politics or economics.  As any parasite will tell you, other people just ask the wrong questions.

If their answer makes them lose followers, it's a wrong answer.

[alancalverd]

But the converse is not true. Popularity is not correlated with accuracy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But the converse is not true. Popularity is not correlated with accuracy.

There's at least a weak correlation, which is not zero. Especially when the accuracy determines the survival in a society.

[alancalverd]

No taxes, free beer for all. Massively popular, zero chance of success.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No taxes, free beer for all. Massively popular, zero chance of success.

They are not popular among lawmakers and beer makers, because their livelihood depends on them. Which is why they are never realized.

[alancalverd]

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!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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!

It's the other way around. Survivability determines popularity, although there might be a long period between the cause and effect.