Ok. Well, I tend to see methodological differences between sciences as not being usually philosophical differences. Unless the method in play is one where researchers don't go after empirical data and just explore theoretical constructs and their implications. String theorists, maybe.

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

In many ways I think data can be used and contextualized in different ways. But I don't think that is a philosophical difference in the use of the data. For example, weather data can be used in a host of different disciplines. But the interpretation of the nature of the data is fairly consistent. I would think that temperature is typically seen as a measure of energy input into the system, regardless whether you are looking at chemical or biological processes, for example.

I.e. it is more a difference of use rather than interpretation.

Indeed, like I said at the start of this; "it's a cultural difference not a philosophical one".

All of recognised science's start with the premise/philosophy of trying to eliminate cultural/human bias, in order to reveal the truth despite the thinker.

@Sohan Lalwani Just gainsaying, is not an argument however long it takes, so please provide a logical reason why I'm wrong.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, like I said at the start of this; "it's a cultural difference not a philosophical one".

All of recognised science's start with the premise/philosophy of trying to eliminate cultural/human bias, in order to reveal the truth despite the thinker.

@Sohan Lalwani Just gainsaying, is not an argument however long it takes, so please provide a logical reason why I'm wrong.

It is quite simply, not every science shares the same philosophy. Data interpretation is a philosophy itself, not every science interprets it the same way. The all have the same core foundations which is the scientific method.

4 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The all have the same core foundations which is the scientific method.

Hmmm, so how am I wrong?

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Hmmm, so how am I wrong?

Foundations and philosophy is not to be confused. Thats how you are wrong. Also don't say i hijacked this thread man

Just now, Sohan Lalwani said:

Foundations and philosophy is not to be confused. Thats how you are wrong. Also don't say i hijacked this thread man

Whyever not ?

Is there a difference and if so what is that difference ?

31 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Foundations and philosophy is not to be confused.

Indeed, that's your job...

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Whyever not ?

Is there a difference and if so what is that difference ?

I am just going to keep repeating myself. REVIEW THE THREAD

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, that's your job...

Considering your an attempted liar, I would simply shut up.

43 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I am just going to keep repeating myself. REVIEW THE THREAD

Considering your an attempted liar, I would simply shut up.

Moderator Note

If you can't be bothered to clarify your meanings, science and philosophical discussion isn't for you. If you can't stop sniping at other members, I'm going to suspend your account for a few days to give you time to review this behavior. Everyone is getting tired of NOT discussing science. and instead having to deal with this divisiveness. Just because the staff recognized some early unearned animosity towards your posts doesn't mean you can attack other members similarly.

40 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Moderator Note

If you can't be bothered to clarify your meanings, science and philosophical discussion isn't for you. If you can't stop sniping at other members, I'm going to suspend your account for a few days to give you time to review this behavior. Everyone is getting tired of NOT discussing science. and instead having to deal with this divisiveness. Just because the staff recognized some early unearned animosity towards your posts doesn't mean you can attack other members similarly.

Understood, I really don't get though why everyone's trying to pick a fight. I was explaining something and then there are snarky comments

35 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Understood, I really don't get though why everyone's trying to pick a fight. I was explaining something and then there are snarky comments

You claimed it was wrong to confuse foundations and philosophy, and were asked what the difference was, if there was one. NOT a snarky comment, but rather a request for clarity.

Telling anyone to "shut up" on a discussion forum is off-topic and rude, especially when you attack their character at the same time. You were definitely NOT simply explaining something. Rational arguments and picking a fight are NOT the same.

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You claimed it was wrong to confuse foundations and philosophy, and were asked what the difference was, if there was one. NOT a snarky comment, but rather a request for clarity.

Telling anyone to "shut up" on a discussion forum is off-topic and rude, especially when you attack their character at the same time. You were definitely NOT simply explaining something. Rational arguments and picking a fight are NOT the same.

My apologies, I won't say it again.

3 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Foundations and philosophy is not to be confused.

Indeed, that's your job...'

That sounds snarky

OK I'll make a start

The philosophy of any subject must be able to reach all parts of that subject and thus must include the foundations of that subject.

Many subjects go beyond the foundations an usually this involves specialisation into non overlapping sections.

But just as you would not build a house that only had foundations under the left but not the right, the foundations of a subject must support the whole edifice.

Furthermore the scientific method is only a part of Science. More scientist-hours are spent on the dreary infil between the glory discoveries.