Philosophy is the way ideas of invoking essence are born. If you have an idea you can't explain with words, (philosophy) you explain with action (science)
I see what your trying to say but with so many ideas today you also need proof to back it up, making scince extremly relevant.
This is science section, not philosophy. You want proof, science gives it to you. You want ideas? Philosophizing gives the ideas to you. To prove the ideas right, you will need math and science. Until the newtons laws are blown to fuck by some unbelievable shit, science will continue to prove things right, and prove idiots wrong.
okay...what are you getting at with this? trying to prove a point or something? or did this just pop into your head and you just had to tell someone about it? that's what this thread is for http://forum.grasscity.com/seasoned-tokers/495446-high-i-have-write-before-i-forget.html XD
What about discoveries in science that lead to new medical techniques/information... How is that relinquishing information that we already know if it previously did not exist. I respect philosophy but it really is a lot of hoo ha in current times because it does not really do anything...(as far as I am concerned, science major here)
So basically you say this is the science section not philosophy section yet wholly agreeing with me? How can you not understand that there is no such thing as Science without Philosophy?
Well there has been a lack of critical thinkers in these current times Could that be a factor? An explanation for the lack of critical thinkers? Could that be science being birthed by philosophy?
Science and philosophy do rely on each other to a certain extent. For example, physics/astronomy/etc is heavily associated with philosophy. However, the medical field, chemistry, and biology, not so much to do with philosophy. There is no lack of critical thinkers, but the speed at which we are proving theories, talking about physics and such, is decreasing. We already have gravity and particle physics understood, except people are trying to prove a universal theory, which is much harder to do, think string theory/multiverse. I do agree with your original post, except only parts of science are heavily influenced and/or rely on philosophy. Edit: Not 100% sure on what you meant by that, but Newton's laws have already been replaced by Einstein's theory of general relativity, we only use Newton's laws because it is much easier to understand by the general population and it is still accurate in our solar system, outside of it not so much.
doesn't work more like ,the person thinks up a theory ,then test the theory with experiments that will make or break it's existences.And when it passes the test,then it is dub science? and a theory is very similar to philosophy..theories are like philosophies, put to the test!
Science does not prove what you already know, it gives or destroys legitimacy to hypotheses you have. It's a confirmation, yes, but it's not an unnecessary or redundant one.
Philosophy is what inspires theory. They are not one in the same Oh ho? Then explain gravity as a tangible substance to me. Or tell me why you can't explain it as a tangible Universal theory is the only theory All is One
I only said that we a have very accurate understanding of the two separate parts of physics, which is gravity(Einstein's theory of general relativity) and particle physics(Quantum theory) . There is no universal theory as of yet, they are trying to prove string theory and multiverse theories, however, it is still not proven and won't be for a while. Really not sure what you are getting at. I have already said, yes, philosophy is a huge part of theoretical physics, its pretty much the basis of most theories, as I assume you agree, you are being slightly vague. I disagree that you say science is dependent on philosophy, most fields aren't. I have but a basic understanding of these fields, and I am not able to explain it further.
Science does not think of ideas. Scientists do. An idea has no power unless it is proven, science proves ideas, and makes them worth something.
I like to think of science as "the scientific method is a way of confirming, or denying your suspicions" (note the suspicion is the same as a hypothesis; both lack evidence)
Intuition, or like i said in my previous post, something that you suspect, but have no proof of. To "know" somehing (as you put it in your thread title) is to not just have a suspicion, but to have belief or faith in something, and regard it as a truth. Using the scientific method (correctly) doesn't make the presumption something is a truth, it should treat the hypothesis without bias, so it can be proven, or disproven though the collection of data obtained through Observation, Experimentation and Testing.
What gives birth to intuition? Electric signals in the brain which electronically make signals on their own without 'us' igniting these sparks? or Thought Process?
Not sure mate, you could use the scientific method to prove/disprove those hypothesis though, or even come across a new and exciting hypothesis during your testing