> Philosophy is not science becase it does not work.
I'm slightly amused by this statement, as modern science is descended directly from philosophy. Indeed without philosophy, I could easily argue there is no science as we know it.
I'm slightly amused by this statement, as modern science is descended directly from philosophy. Indeed without philosophy, I could easily argue there is no science as we know it.
Now days we call the useless bits philosophy, 200 years ago back when people took Phrenology as a real thing that was not true.
Thats just it though, science is natural philosophy. Doesn't get changed by modern terminology at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Your personal definition of science and philosophy don't override the overall usage of the terms. Feel free to encourage their use, but know those definitions aren't the overall accepted definitions in use.
Anyway, it's really not my definition for Science, if you want to quote wikipedia: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][a]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) Notice the last of specific implementation details, that's what I am referring to.
"The earliest roots of science can be traced to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3500 to 3000 BCE" well before natural philosophy. The Greeks are given a lot of credit, but they the ideas are much older than them.