Science grew out of philosophy taking only the good parts as a refined way of finding truth...

Science grew out of philosophy taking only the good parts as a refined way of finding truth. Philosophy was a very primitive tool for finding truth that lacked the requirement for one to actually prove his assertions. Basically, science isn't afraid to say "I don't know," but philosophy will make up some bullshit and say "you can't prove I'm wrong."

This has got to be the most r/atheism thing I've read in a year.
If you're not baiting please leave this place.

Science is a form of philosophy.

Science uses the empirical method, but not all knowledge can be gained empirically. Not everything is evident to the senses, and not everything can be tested through experimentation. Pure reason is needed to access other domains, pure irrationality others. This is where philosophy and the other fields come in.

>Pure reason is needed to access other domains, pure irrationality others.
>other domains
>others
Which ones?

trolled

OP fell for the empiricism + capitalism = ultimate reality meme.

It's ironic that he says philosophy will make up "you can't prove I'm wrong" explanations when empiricists do this all the time via "observational error/sensory aberration"

Stuff like certain aspects of the arts, esotericism, religion, theology, etc. You can get way more out of these fields if you don't insist on reason constantly, though of course reason has its place in each.

no

>Science grew out of philosophy taking only the good parts as a refined way of finding truth.
Prove it.
Why are you so afraid to just say "I don't know"? Why do you have to make up some bullshit and say "you can't prove I'm wrong"?

And this post is you rising above the fray?
You haven't even reached our level yet.

0/10. Put some effort into it next time.

>and have picked your side
Veeky Forums oldfags, pls tell me, is this Veeky Forums's version of summer?
it's my first year browsing Veeky Forums, sorry for the question.

Philosophy was literally born out of a guy saying he knew nothing.

Something something Parmenides you're wrong but not really

Philosophy proper, as a systematic investigation begins with Socrates.

Oh okay, if you define philosophy as such you're probably in the right. I think otherwhise but suit yourself.

Cut off the sarcasm and explain in what way you disagree.

Wasn't sarcastic, just brusque. Sorry man. I'm of the opinion philosophy is the event-creation of a narrative of the world allowing for the world as seen by us to express itself, leaving room for our interpretation to be absorbed and reutilized by someone else in its own event-creation. I know it may not be agreed with, so I can understand if our ideas differ. If I'm unclear, that's my ESL.

Isn't this "I don't know" argument the ultimate "you can't prove I'm wrong" argument? You can basically say anything and not be accused of actually believing what you've said. It seems like scientists would just use this as an excuse though. "I'm right until there's a better theory that I agree with."

And before it's asked yes I'm a filthy Deleuze reading, Spinoza loving undergrad who's on the continental side, if we have to use the dichotomy.

THE BAIT is FRESH today.

This clinches it. Veeky Forums is the most Dunning Kruger board on Veeky Forums.

Fuck off with social pseudoscience

Infinite substance or GTFO

Refer you to my previous post for my interpretation of it.

No, that's definitely /pol/

Science isn't the system used to study the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Basic semantics.
Unless is right and you're a troll. In which case, you win, I guess?