I am in fact talking about science sorry if that went over your head.
I am genuinely curious to know what you have understood my conclusions to be.
I wont further distract you so go ahead, i really want to know because i dont feel like any of my points where received as they should have.
Well one of your conclusions seems to be that science can involve not using the scientific method. And you’re just wrong. That’s magic. Alchemy. Religion. But not science.
“One of”
Oh i provided multiple conclusions?? The plot thickens, how actually intriguing. I am really trying hard to be as obvious and literal as i can and yet people read stuff that not there.
But no i have not expressed such opinions on the scientific method which i do respect much more then your interpretation of it (nothing personal, I promise)
I believe every belief i have held has always remained true to its principles (as far as i can be aware) so no this was never a point to be changed.
It does shed some light on the crux of our debate which is apparently about what is defined as the foundation of science.
You see the scientific method was summarized in the 17th century. Science is recorded to be much older.
Personally i found that post education i relate much more to the ancient greek ideas of science. Particularly in using philosophy to expand once thinking but also seeing the mathematics in the world around me.
What is my interpretation of the scientific method?
And “science” before the scientific method was not science. It was magic and alchemy and religion. It was not tested. Experiments were not repeated to test them. Things were taken on literal faith.
And you can relate to the Ancient Greeks, but they were wrong. About pretty much everything.
