[randomdata]

> And which philospher of science said that then?

I did. Obviously. Why would I retell what another philosopher said? That would be rather silly. If they want something to be known, they can let you know themselves.

> Which others disagree?

Whichever ones disagree. Again, they can speak for themselves.

> Some claim that Mathematics is the Queen of Sciences

In other words, not science?

> yet without which science is and has nothing

I am not sure you have made a convincing case that science is more than nothing. If that is what you are trying to convince us of, you are not making providing a compelling argument.

[defrost]

> I did. Obviously.

So it's an opinion from your philosophy and not a universal absolute as you presented.

> I am not sure you have made a convincing case that science is more than nothing.

I haven't, just presented positions held by others .. and with no convincing case I guess we must conclude that science is nothing.

Or maybe assume there's something to it <shrug>.

[randomdata]

> So it's an opinion from your philosophy and not a universal absolute as you presented.

Wait. If it were a universal absolute, for what reason would I present it? A universal absolute offers no remaining opportunity for me to learn, and why would I enter into a discussion that provides no learning opportunity? That would be a pointless waste of time. Whichever philosopher gave you the idea that I would waste my time like that did not think things through and has severely misguided you.

> I guess we must conclude that science is nothing. Or maybe assume there's something to it <shrug>.

Either way. As feeble humans (or LLM bots), we are not science. We can make assumptions that may or may not have any basis in reality.