Long ago, in another realm Science, Math and Philosophy was split from the Religion, God and Theology folk and there was some question, at least in my mind as to whether the taking away of philosophy was apropos but the change was made.

It appears to me, at least, that the forums should be changed with Philosophy going to the Religion forum for in truth philosophy and theology are much more akin and in fact one leads to the other.

The new forum could be called Religion, God, Theology, and Philosophy but my particular favorite is Religion, Theology, and Philosophy or RTP for the abbreviators.

The Science forum could be called Science, Math and Technology or SMT. .

There is a Philosophy of Science which could in actuality be discussed in either forum so the idea is not to restrict but understand that there is always some overlap as it is possible to post of the Philosophy of Mathematics but this is getting ahead of ourselves .

In classical lexicon "science" or "scire" comes from the Latin, "to know" with the word in our times relegated to the physical sciences but I would still like "to know" and in this understanding Philosophy should be given its proper place alongside Religion and Theology.

Thank you, you may now return to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

I didn't expect this, wow just wow .

Who were you in a previous life ? Did I hurt you or whatever ?You can't just have 2 posts; were you banned or just ashamed ? Was it humiliating for you ? Go away little fly, either you're coming out of adolescence or quite mad , in either case this ends it .

Think he said in his nice carlo way, ball up and use your real account.

Something has to claimed as science for it to be declared pseudo-science after analysis.

Just the repeating the naked claim takes it outside and into the cold...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Derision absent of evidence has been a long staple of certain types of thinkers in all fields , but it appears to only work effectively on the uninformed or when backed with force. Which is how people develop a bias towards thinking it is some especially rational behavior.

Ask the mods to unban your old one?

You aren't aware your behavior so far ITT is easily definable as not much more than emotional derision? It's got little to do with me, I'm just categorizing what is there for anyone to see.

I do empathize as you must have a strong urge to create such a waste of effort. Best of luck with it.

Can make one shaking its head in disbelief?

Either way i see you have issues. Ill leave you to them.

yessir I remember like it was yesterday

That appears to me, too.

Whatever it turns out to be should include this:

I get it Erf ,the best to you and thanx.

I drop into RGT for the first time in a while and find Carlo, Erf, and Spank in one thread.

Nope. Not going to read a single word of their incoherent. drivel.

Hoppy New Year !!

Abusive off-topic rants belongs in no forum. As others have said, post with your real account or STFU.

I think the philosophy content of RGT is generally superior to the stuff posted to SMP, largely due to Original Position and his expertise on the subject.

Other than that I don't think the names of the forums matter much. I mean, theology is a science (though it doesn't have to be), philosophy matters to all the subjects we discuss in both forums (can you even discuss them without epistemology, teleology or ontology?) and so forth.

I have not read all of this conversation but I did not notice one comment here. I would never have considered theology to be a science and cannot see how it could be. Science in my opinion requires the ability to experiment. Theology does not offer that opportunity. I would say that theology is a branch of philosophy however.

There came into existence in the other forum that this very concept of "science" being experiment and especially physical experiment is all that was needed and therefore discussion would be moot. It appeared, to me, that there reared the ugly head of suppression because of this approach or belief of only experiment and consequential results. No discussion needed, perhaps clarification would be Ok.

A lot of what I've written in the other forum was to display the philosophical underpinnings of "science" as experiment and the necessity of philosophy which cannot be separated from "science". As Tame Deuces stated "science" is underpinned by epistemology, ontology and teleology which are inseparable from "science".

If the scientist only lives within the metric consequence of the experiment then discussion is unnecessary which means that the scientist should not be allowed to "think" for it becomes an "unthinking" approach to whatever reality it is seeking. In so far as it is only "experiment", physically bound, then the scientist does not "think". Discussion is difficult, in science, for it leaves no room for a thinking consideration, "das is dat".

And so I make mention of the idea of "scire" the recently old Latin picture of science, "to know", which is a philosophical mantra in in which thinking seeks truth. In this sense Theology is indeed "scientific", not only the evaluation of, but also the activity of theologizing. A classic example is Aquinas who presents the "scientific mind" in a reasoned logic which cannot be gainsaid.

The distinction becomes ; the presentation of "sense free" thinking as apposed to "sense bound" thinking which might be a good topic of discussion but too much here. Phew...

Theology can be a science similarly to how literature studies, history or archaeology can be a science (and is indeed often a mix of those subjects). Some would argue that those cannot be sciences (even some practitioners), I would vehemently disagree with them.

Science doesn't require experimentation, not even empirical science stringently requires that (it could for example use naturalistic observation instead). It is, however, a good method and tool in many, many cases.

To even mention 'Theology' with the word 'Science' is blasphemy imho! And inherently incorrect.......

It is a science, it doesn't have to be. People tend to forget that theology is also an academic discipline, taught at reputable universities, where practitioners often follow recognized scientific methods and publishing standards. Not that those are necessarily requirements for science in and of themselves, but insofar as they are known qualifiers for the term - it is certainly sufficient evidence insofar as this point goes.

Theology is of course more than that, it is a term with multiple meanings. It can for example be a purely religious / spiritual pursuit. The point is merely that the separation between subjects for SMP and RGT was (and is) rather fluid.

People also tend to forget that science is a very broad term, far broader than empirical science. Phenomenology doesn't adhere to empirical standards for example, but is a very valuable method in medical research.