🚀 go-pugleaf

reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote in message news:<844a1b64.0311120733.3ce18ab2@posting.google.com>...
> "Dio" <dadaismo@tin.it> wrote in message news:<psasb.6842$9_.282814@news1.tin.it>...
> > Science and philosophy (or epistemology) have been very important for our
> > knowledge.
> > But nowadays what is the main difference between science and philosophy?
> > 
> > What do you think about?
> > 
> > Thank you everybody
> > 
> > Bye bye
> > Franco
> 
> There's more to philosophy than epistemology. Anyway, science is one
> possible empirical arm of philosophy. Newton referred to science as
> "experimental philosophy."
> 
> See RULE IV in
> 
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newton-princ.html
> 
> Natural philosophy is a sort of ontological foundation upon which one
> can build science and theories in particular. It contains assumptions
> about the eistence of things and "rules of operation of Nature," so to
> speak. That ontology that is generally accepted is "convention" (which
> includes the existence of the ordinary visible realm). All the rest
> are just formal theoretical models. Setting up science is not a
> scientific activity; it is a philosophic activity.
> 
> Just for your information, the modern physicist is not like his or her
> predecessors of pre-WWII era physicists (such as Mach, Einstein, Bohr,
> and Heisenberg) concerning philosophy and epistemology, who studied
> and appreciated those subjects, and often quoted and referenced
> philosophers. But today's physicist is more likely than not to scorn
> both philosophy and philosophers with unrelenting invective.
> 
> Patrick

Right! Thanks Patrick for this energetic reply. 
It was only after many years that I realised that Science is a branch
of Philosophy.

I have just a slight difference in point of view about labels -
without changing the essence of your comments:
I would say (and this is generally held) that Physics is Natural
Philosophy.
(Rules I-IV)
Rule IV correponds to Experimental Physics.

Harald