I Like Philosophy

@SW-User Absolutely. And it should take it's place in school as a branch of philosophy instead of as the replacement for philosophy

@DeepDreamer Agreed. I disagree about flaws existing in the empirical method, though. It reliably produces facts- and hypotheses are clearly delineated from theories. Only limited ranges in observation and purview might be criticized.

@MerryMilkshake You gave me a good laugh. Thanks.

@DeepDreamer So Popper's , the scientific method starts from speculation based on an observation (usually), you have to form an initial hypothesis. then it moves to investigation and you have to find evidence to back it up via experimentation. In that case you can't just say it is just speculation and peer reviews.

If we talk about mathematics, it starts from logical axioms and yes, those are not concrete, just sets. The accuracy can be demonstrated though in concrete manifestations. Most times, not always.

Correlation does not imply causation- that's pretty much a scientific principle. I think now people are driven to not make the distinction because quantifiable research is given the same merit as the experimental.

I don't think it should be glorified, at the same time neither should philosophy. They are both limited but they are our best bets currently , for different purposes.

Science is designed to shift when a developing theory would not qualify as a paradigm. Once the successful development of a groundbreaking theory is completed, a paradigm shift suddenly surfaces because it is incommensurable and cannot be integrated with the prevailing theory & is replaced. Science then has to solve that paradox..So it is part of its nature to never form conclusive answers, it evolves and so does its accuracy. And truth like you implied, is open to change.

@Miram I agree with everything you said. If there are any implications in what you said then I missed them.

I didn't mean to say that science is just speculation and peer review, what I meant to say were that those are where the 'flaws' in science are. I don't know a better way to articulate what I mean than to say that they are flaws. The implication of a flaw is normally that the 'flaw' can be improved upon, but in this case any flaws 'in the method' are human error.

I will think on this for a while and see if I can properly word the concepts that I am trying to get across, I don't think I am doing a very good job of it.

@DeepDreamer You do a great job actually. Since there's no "only", my response was more of an assumption. Take it easy on you.

@DeepDreamer I was quoting YOU!! What don't you get? If you're not implying something, then don't imply it then it won't be inferred!


And as for this:

[quote]"Tectonic plates are pieces of Earth's crust and uppermost mantle, together referred to as the lithosphere. The plates are around 100 km (62 mi) thick and consist of two principal types of material: oceanic crust (also called sima from silicon and magnesium) and continental crust (sial from silicon and aluminium)."[/quote]

What is your problem with that?

I think you need to stick to philosophy and not worry too much about nuts and bolts topics. They're not your field.

Quit taking implication from my statements. I mean what I say, not what you gather as an implications.

The problem with that is that it is a THEORY stated as a FACT. What don't you understand about this? When THEORIES are stated as FACTS to CHILDREN throughout their entire EDUCATION, the children start to believe that theories and hearsay are facts and you end up with a society full of simple minded people who apparently can't understand the difference between implication and statement.

@DeepDreamer Oh jeeze..WHICH theory? Tectonics? That is fact. What do you think it is? The Easter Bunny having a bad day?

@DeepDreamer I mean, even with few people choosing careers involved with science, even less are choosing careers involved with philosophy. I think that learning about it can be valuable. It can teach students a lot. But the purpose of school is to prepare them for the workforce and for college/university. And really, in school, they just teach the basics. You do the minimum and they let you decide if you want to continue with it.

@SW-User You're not getting my point. The focus of core subjects should not be on something that helps people in a specific line of careers. Look at the core subjects, do they line up with the most common careers? No. History wouldn't be a core subject if they existed to prepare you for a specific field. They are supposed to exist to prepare you for life, by teaching you to think properly. The expanse of philosophical subjects provide a massive arena for people to train their minds in, and trained minds are a massive factor in success. Besides, why should grade school train a person for a career? It should train them to handle life as an adult, considering that it takes children away from the family that would likely be teaching that to the children much better if the children weren't gone 8 hours a day.

@DeepDreamer Grade school has only math, English, and basic life science, man. How do you suppose philosophy could be taught in grade school? They're at a stage in their life when they are grasping and understanding the physical world. Sure, philosophy could help with critical thinking. But so can other things that don't require philosophy to become a whole new core subject. A lot of changes would need to be made. Not saying it isn't possible, but it isn't practical. Grade school teaches kids the basics. How to read, how to count, how our physical world functions. Philosophy isn't one of those basic things. You don't need philosophy to work at a convenience store. But you do need to know how to read and how to count. And with life science, you learn about how to protect your world, pretty much. Not sure about parents teaching their children "better" when many of them haven't even gone to school themselves, and when many of them have to work for a living. I can see critical thinking being taught. Which it is. It's applied to pretty much everything. But something as broad as philosophy seems like a bit of a stretch, you Know? Especially since you'd have to train teachers further and stretch the time at school over even more subjects, which could mean lower quality teaching and learning.

@Rain95 I feel like having philosophy as an elective is like having a foreign language as an elective... there iust isn't enough time devoted to the subject for people to learn it well enough that it makes a difference in their life. In 3 years of foreign language class you are unlikely to learn enough of the language to make use of it, and I think the same applies to philosophy.