[staunton]

I guess the intended meaning was that you chose your request ("apply what you say to a problem") based on certain philosophical criteria. I think that's actually a surprisingly valid point, given the original (downvoted) comment.

[CyberDildonics]

Applying what someone claims is science is not a "philosophical criteria", that's how evidence and proof works.

[staunton]

Which is a philosophical criterion. Just 1000 years ago people would have found such a call for "science" strange and deeply insulting to their authority, which they would have needed to dare speculate about things such as math or physics. Most theories were made from "first principles" while things that were established by evidence (tried it a few times, it always worked, let's keep doing it) were mostly not considered science.

[CyberDildonics]

I have no idea what you are talking about and I don't think you do either. The person above thought that physics would be simpler if people used 'philosophy' (whatever that means).

[staunton]

Just in case you care to know what I'm talking about: I'm pointing out that philosophy had a lot of influence in changing the way science is done (leading to faster progress). This process is ongoing.

Of course, you don't help anyone make progress in physics just by suggesting they should "use some philosophy for a change".

[CyberDildonics]

> I'm pointing out that philosophy had a lot of influence in changing the way science is done (leading to faster progress)

You aren't really pointing it out, you're just claiming that without any evidence at all.