The basic layout of science and philosophy

Hi SN,

I've been involved in scientific research for quite a while. Sp let me see whether i was doing what you say. What would be formed in the sense of the form, the process of formation and the formative principle? Well, usually we start by describing the materials and the instruments (suchh as lasers, magnets etc.) and measuring devices as well as the method we use to start the research. We then describe what our instruments measure as a result of our experiments. Then we discuss the mechanism of the process of the observed transformation in the material system within the framework of existing theories if our theoretical background is sufficient to accommodate uncharted territory. So if your analysis includes materials, instruments, measuring devices, transformations,scientific theories and the skills and intuition of the scientist then we agree. Philosophy is quite different because there we can talk about souls, monads without windows, phenomena and noumena and all kind of rather solipsistic theories which would never be accepted in a scientific journal, whose very existence assumes a scientific community and experimental  facts that can be verified by every scientist with an adequate formation and an adequate equipment.

What if you create something you are not able to measure?

As far as mankind is concerned today, the fields of mathmatics and  physics are absolutes. That is to say,  that those laws of physics can all be proved via the application of experiment and mathematical interpretation. However, the field of dreams, IE, ( philosophy) is not absolute. This field of science still lacks solid foundation. Mostly, the field of philosophy is made up of conjecture and is subject to many different persuasions and perspectives. The main subject which exemplifies this is the question of  the origination of mankind itself. Were we divinely created on the spot, or did we  evolve from a lesser species? The answer is totally debatable from the various perspectives. However, it sure is interesting and awe inspiring. As far as deriving absolutes from the bell curve goes, this method does in fact predict an outcome, however it is still a PROBABLE OUTCOME, not an absolute. Key words, ABSOLUTE and PROBABLE.

The fact is that science and philosophy are mathematically derived and are anything BUT imprecise.  The study of logic will confirm that.

As to thermodynamics, as before, this is a quantified, rigorous science.  It is of great benefit to engineering and theoretical work.

But to imply that the evolution hypothesis has any scientific merit whatsoever is so unscientific as to cause derisive laughter.  As earlier proved, Darwin was on the verge of yet another nervous breakdown, so his colleagues sent him away before he cracked up again.  The Galapagos seemed far enough away from civilization to keep him out of harm's way.  They hoped that the solitude would do him good.

Disappointingly, Darwin came back crazier than ever.  His hypothesis made no sense then and it makes less now, but atheists are fanatics without the ability to reason so they will preach anything so long as they can antagonize people.  We have scientific backgrounds, where atheists never can. 

We really do quantify our results where the evolution hypothesis true believers cannot ever be substante their beliefs in any way.  Evolution is therefore pseudoscience and shall remain so.

That fact will always send atheist fanatics to a froth, and they will always react most comically, but that is what atheists get for having dogmatic and completely unscientific minds.

We mathematically proved Divine Creation as early as 1400, and the proof has piled up deeper and deeper ever since.  Sorry, atheists: ACTUAL science got the better of you.

To predict the unpredictable is elementary!My predictions are not predictions at all,they are visions of the visionaries,as we call them,to see into the future you must forget the past,present tense is made to last!New life,in place of old life,unscarred by trials!And then you must advance to the new level of existence,and see things at this level!All the while,while Eye Am in the 23rd Century,you must summon me back to 2009,to explain where humankind has gone wrong,and Eye must redirect you towards success of peace everlasting!

If you want to get more simple, science answers the how?  And philosophy answers the why?

More probable? Yeah

Perhaps.  But as for me, I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.