(December 18, 2008 at 2:16 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: There are no absolutes in human understanding. Even science isn't absolute in it's conclusions. Science is about the most probable. I agree it's an awful good probable in most cases, but don't make a religion from science. And by now must know that from my pen as a strong defender of science and a scepticist about just about everything, this isn't in defense of theism or relativism but in defense of the scientific method itself.Yes, but what I am talking about is the evidence. When people say "there is no evidence of evolution", I want to be able to turn around to them, show them Richard Lenski's studies, various fossils, genetic similarities, etc. For them to still say there is no "evidence" for Evolution would be counter to all possible reason. They can accept this evidence and then say "Well it's also evidence for creation"; I have no problems with them doing that,, as long as they admit that their previous notion concerning the lack of evidence was wrong. We would show Daystar countless pieces of evidence, and he would simply reject them and make up stuff. I don't want that happening in what is supposed to be a debate, and I don't think you would either.
The dichotomy you assume between philosophy and science is artificial. Philosophy arguably is a part of science, especially in the hypothesizing phase at the start of scientific endeauvour and in the end phase of interpretation and cross connecting of sceintific results.
Having no reason to debate with someone is not the same as shutting someone out from the possibility to debate.
Philosophy is not a part of science; Philosophy is to logic what science is to nature. Yes, you can use Philosophy within science (to answer questions about ethics, existence, etc) but it is wrong to say that philosophy is a part of science. There are many philosophies that have nothing to do with science. Whilst science relies on experiments and observations, philosophy relies on rational arguments and reasoning. Science might contribute a few things to philosophical thinking (such as equality of the sexes being a part of ethics), but that doesn't make them the same.
By the way, this debate we are having here is a perfect example of how things should be done. You are putting forward your points, and I am either commenting or attempting to refute them, and raising counter points. If I were to suddenly start shouting "PHILOSOPHY IS NOT SCIENCE" in every single post, I would have to warn myself
