Strange

What makes Mono "unofficial" but PHP (for example) "official"? There are probably many of the same authors involved. Is it the fact that there is no spec available for the .NET APIs for the Mono developers to use? But then there is no spec for PHP or 99% of the rest of the Linux/GNU framework so it is no better or worse than the rest of the OSS world.

Those "third party hacks" are the basis of all Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP code. (Which is why some people are still scornful of Linux as a platform - it isn't that long ago that I heard one major OEM describe it as "written by amateurs in their bedrooms").

Note that the idea of a singularity of zero volume is not part of the mainstream big bang theory; this just describes the evolution of the universe from an early hot dense state.

And there is the flaw in your argument.

No, I didn't say that. (Is it "International Misunderstanding Strange Week"?) But I think your misuse of language is almost as bad. (And there really is a good thread on what these words mean.)

You have used the words evidence, proof, hypoithesis and theory. Are you not ashamed? You might want to take a look at the "concepts of modern science" thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88098-basic-concepts-of-modern-science/

Some evidence or testable predictions of this "theory" would be nice.

Can you explain what aspects of that you do not find to be meaningful, then perhaps we can explain ti to you in more detail. Note that (2) is just a straightforward consequence of geometry: you can verify it with a few drawings of dots on paper. But if you want examples of things that don't seem to be meaningful: Is there any evidence for any of that?

In Europe (I don't know about elsewhere) there is concern that the collapse of bee populations could destroy many of our food crops because they are dependant on bees for fertilization.

To knock down the Pillar of Dogma, you need to swing the mighty Hammer of Evidence. Sadly, too many people are unable to lift the weight.

Although there have been threads disputing the basics of arithmetic (either claiming it is wrong or that is just an arbitrary assumption). Or people are unwilling to accept the clarity offered. (Horse, water, etc.)

I would say that philosophers analysed and refined the scientific method after scientists had been using it on an ad-hoc basis for several centuries. Philosophers also put mathematics on a solid, axiomatic basis.

<raises hand>

Apparently it depends whether they were a Doctor of Eastern Philosophy or a Doctor of Western Philosophy.

Hmmm... Like an entire thread devoted to the question...

Apparently, you should not make such an extreme choice; you must go to all pubs and none of them simultaneously. Ommm....

Going back to your earlier example of Newton: when it was discovered that the precession of Mercury was not explained by Newton's theory, if someone had just said "abandon Newton" that would not have allowed the correct precession to be calculated. So abandoning other models does not, by itself, provide a solution. So, how exactly does "abandon all extreme metaphysical theories" answer the question of free will? The only reason your claim is "irrefutable" is because there appears to be nothing to refute. It is very clear. But, I suspect, not in the way you hope.

From that first link, "what you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not" could describe a quite a few threads going on currently... Then it shouldn't be hard to provide an example. You haven't given a solution. You have claimed there is one, but that's all.

Why do hackers confuse Halloween and Christmas? Because Oct 31 = Dec 25.

All you appear saying that all (western) philosophy is wrong. That is completely unhelpful. Obviously not. I assumed from the comment that started this, that you thought at least some philosophers had solved one or more problems. I was interested to find out what they might be. It seems like I read to much into your comment about Dennett (to me, "what problems has he solved" implied that others had solved problems). If I thought I knew the answer why would I ask the question? I asked because I hoped you were going to give some interesting examples of problems solved by philosophy. (And please stop telling me what I think and why. It would be annoying enough if you were right) Perhaps you can explain how simply dismissing whole swathes of philosophical thought is a solution to anything.

That is the sort of thing I was hoping to hear about. Apart from contributing to the definition/development of the scientific method, I can't really think of anything

And making people aware that there are (at least) these two ways thinking about the problem is valuable.

As you are flat out wrong about this (YOU implied that philosophy solved problems. THAT was the reason for the question) I see little reason to trust anything else you say. But as you haven't actually contributed anything, that is no great loss.

That is quite surreal. Or maybe metaphysical. I get the impression you weren't really interested in answering the question, just promoting your beliefs. I agree. But I haven't yet seen any examples of problems solved or questions answered, yet. And I don't see your approach of saying all other approaches are wrong is in at all helpful. That is a bit like the people who pop up here, now and again, and say "all science is wrong" but don't have any alternative. Well, I was interested. Hence this thread. I can't agree it is useless.

No. It was asked because you said that philosophy solves problems. (Specifically you said that Dennett had not solved any problems, which is what led me to wonder what problems any philosopher had solved.) It might be evidence that philosophy is useless (but I don't believe that). You haven't presented anything that solves any problems so I'm not sure what you are saying.