Earth as seen from the moon

  • 68 Replies
  • 14634 Views
*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #30 on: September 01, 2012, 06:16:26 AM »
The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.

I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.
Sometimes that is not always the answer in philosophy.

"True" means "not false".
So yes, it is always the answer, in philosophy as well as everything else. You are failing to distinguish between things that can or cannot be known as true, and philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable. That's what it's for. Trying to claim that we can't ever properly know what is true would be a semantic side-track in this instance.
No it doesn't.
Also, "philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable"...really? I mean seriously, do you honestly think that?

What I consider to be philosophy is the study of questioning the nature of things that we have no practical ability to address by experiment or observation. If we can observe them practically, then it falls into the realm of science, defined as distinct from philosophy because of the possibility of finding a definite answer to a question. For example "Is the universe expanding indefinitely?" is science, whereas "did a deity cause the expansion of the universe?" is philosophy. "Can our eyes tell us there is a table?" is science, whereas "Can we trust our senses that the table really exists?" is philosophy.
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #31 on: September 01, 2012, 06:21:35 AM »
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?

I explained the difference between what is considered science and what is considered philosophy, and how they differ. Sharks and piranhas are both fish, but different. Science and philosophy are both ways of attempting to understand the world around us, but only one can give us any answers.
Similar to why if I showed you a picture of a bird and asked you what it was you'd say "that's a bird" rather than "that's a dinosaur".
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #32 on: September 01, 2012, 06:45:52 AM »
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?

I explained the difference between what is considered science and what is considered philosophy, and how they differ. Sharks and piranhas are both fish, but different. Science and philosophy are both ways of attempting to understand the world around us, but only one can give us any answers.
Similar to why if I showed you a picture of a bird and asked you what it was you'd say "that's a bird" rather than "that's a dinosaur".
Well minus that fact you completely butchered defining everything, that was a good explanation of what's going on in your thinking: and it's worrying.

If the knowledge defines chemistry as only the atomic interactions that happen in water, is that suddenly the definition of chemistry?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

burt

  • 849
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #33 on: September 01, 2012, 06:55:38 AM »

Round Earth reality is by definition not falsifiable.

there is no definition I have seen where it says "Round Earth Theory: a concept that states that the earth is unalfsifiably round." I don't think you understand falsifiability, because it clearly is falsifiable, if not it would be classes as unscientific.

something is either unfalsifiable or unscientific. at least according to most philosophical and theoretical scientists.
here is a short list of popperians for your perusal

Karl popper (obviously)
Richard Dawkins (although he is slipping slightly into dogmatic science)
David Deutczh
Brian Greene
Stephen Hawking
Einstein (agreed with poppersl model)

etc


« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 07:12:05 AM by burt »

?

burt

  • 849
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #34 on: September 01, 2012, 07:09:26 AM »
The very cornerstone of scientific theories relies on their ability to be falsifiable. By proudly proclaiming that your theory is unfalsifiable, you are in essence saying that your theory is not scientific in the least. Now, this in no way proves flat-earth theory, but it bounces round-earth theory clearly out of the realm of serious scientific thought.

I think he means it's not falsifiable because it's reality and therefore true. As opposed to in the theoretical sense. I'm sure you agree that whatever is true cannot be false, be it FE or RE.
Sometimes that is not always the answer in philosophy.

"True" means "not false".
So yes, it is always the answer, in philosophy as well as everything else. You are failing to distinguish between things that can or cannot be known as true, and philosophy only operates in the area of the unknowable. That's what it's for. Trying to claim that we can't ever properly know what is true would be a semantic side-track in this instance.

Truth has been relagated to a mere logical function, which has no relation to empirical findings. Truth does mean "not false". read more up on the philosophy of science everyone from the verficationists to popper to operationalism  to paradigm theory to quine etc , all dispensed with the ability to know if something is certainly true, though we can know with more accuracy whether it is false, because you can apply scepticism to everything and question it, but if you take the opposite stance from skeptcism, you end up finding whatever you are looking for, which is called... selection bias.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 07:11:10 AM by burt »

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #35 on: September 01, 2012, 08:59:49 AM »
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?

I explained the difference between what is considered science and what is considered philosophy, and how they differ. Sharks and piranhas are both fish, but different. Science and philosophy are both ways of attempting to understand the world around us, but only one can give us any answers.
Similar to why if I showed you a picture of a bird and asked you what it was you'd say "that's a bird" rather than "that's a dinosaur".
Well minus that fact you completely butchered defining everything, that was a good explanation of what's going on in your thinking: and it's worrying.

If the knowledge defines chemistry as only the atomic interactions that happen in water, is that suddenly the definition of chemistry?

Tell you what, Ichi, why don't you give us an example of something that has been found to be provably true or false by philosophy, but not with the type of philosophy that a layman would call "science", then. Anything at all.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

burt

  • 849
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #36 on: September 01, 2012, 09:07:12 AM »
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?

I explained the difference between what is considered science and what is considered philosophy, and how they differ. Sharks and piranhas are both fish, but different. Science and philosophy are both ways of attempting to understand the world around us, but only one can give us any answers.
Similar to why if I showed you a picture of a bird and asked you what it was you'd say "that's a bird" rather than "that's a dinosaur".
Well minus that fact you completely butchered defining everything, that was a good explanation of what's going on in your thinking: and it's worrying.

If the knowledge defines chemistry as only the atomic interactions that happen in water, is that suddenly the definition of chemistry?

Tell you what, Ichi, why don't you give us an example of something that has been found to be provably true or false by philosophy, but not with the type of philosophy that a layman would call "science", then. Anything at all.

P -> Q
Q
P

false.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #37 on: September 01, 2012, 10:56:03 AM »
Also, don't you find it strange that NASA keeps sending probes to Mars, hands down the most easily faked environment, when there is an entire "solar system" of places to probe?  Curious.

Yes, how curious that they'd send rovers to the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt them minutes after landing.  It really makes you think.

According to RET, Mars is not "the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt [rovers] minutes after landing".
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #38 on: September 01, 2012, 12:05:25 PM »
Also, don't you find it strange that NASA keeps sending probes to Mars, hands down the most easily faked environment, when there is an entire "solar system" of places to probe?  Curious.

Yes, how curious that they'd send rovers to the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt them minutes after landing.  It really makes you think.

According to RET, Mars is not "the closest planet that isn't hot enough to melt [rovers] minutes after landing".

Imagine that he's added "excluding earth" into the definition, sorry that you can't detect implied conditions like us normal people.
And Saddam claims I'm autistic...  ::)
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #39 on: September 02, 2012, 12:15:11 AM »
Imagine that he's added "excluding earth" into the definition

A fair point. While we're imagining that people said things they didn't, I'll just append "also, the Earth is flat" to his argument.

Another victory for FET!
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #40 on: September 02, 2012, 02:25:25 AM »
Trying to claim that science is a type of philosophy is a semantic argument, so don't waste our time trying that one.
Quick question, when it is revealed to you that science is philosophy and your world comes crashing down, do you believe that is due to gravity or UA?

I explained the difference between what is considered science and what is considered philosophy, and how they differ. Sharks and piranhas are both fish, but different. Science and philosophy are both ways of attempting to understand the world around us, but only one can give us any answers.
Similar to why if I showed you a picture of a bird and asked you what it was you'd say "that's a bird" rather than "that's a dinosaur".
Well minus that fact you completely butchered defining everything, that was a good explanation of what's going on in your thinking: and it's worrying.

If the knowledge defines chemistry as only the atomic interactions that happen in water, is that suddenly the definition of chemistry?

Tell you what, Ichi, why don't you give us an example of something that has been found to be provably true or false by philosophy, but not with the type of philosophy that a layman would call "science", then. Anything at all.

P -> Q
Q
P

false.

I don't know what that means. Also, I meant in terms of real world facts, not abstract concepts.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #41 on: September 02, 2012, 02:55:07 AM »
Also, I meant in terms of real world facts, not abstract concepts.

Ah, yet another case of "respond to what I meant, not what I said". Tell me, do you ever say what you mean?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2012, 05:19:31 PM »
Also, I meant in terms of real world facts, not abstract concepts.

Ah, yet another case of "respond to what I meant, not what I said". Tell me, do you ever say what you mean?

It has become what I said as I have added a coda, unless you've invented a time machine. Your post would only have been valid if posted prior to mine.

Still don't see any answer from Ichi, as expected.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #43 on: September 02, 2012, 05:26:05 PM »
Do I really need to explain that science is not separate from philosophy?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #44 on: September 02, 2012, 05:27:13 PM »
Still don't see any answer from Ichi, as expected.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #45 on: September 02, 2012, 05:39:29 PM »
Still don't see any answer from Ichi, as expected.
Hard to answer when you don't know what science is. Or are we going to use another unique TK definition lol.

What boggles my mind TK is your completely terrible idea of what philosophy is
Quote
What I consider to be philosophy is the study of questioning the nature of things that we have no practical ability to address by experiment or observation.
I can not think of a single philosopher that would agree with you.
Thankfully "what TK considers" does not magically throw a discipline on its head or suddenly reinvent it.
If you comment on something, perhaps you should be familiar with the topic beforehand. But you didn't. As expected.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #46 on: September 02, 2012, 05:56:44 PM »
Still don't see any answer from Ichi, as expected.
Hard to answer when you don't know what science is. Or are we going to use another unique TK definition lol.

What boggles my mind TK is your completely terrible idea of what philosophy is
Quote
What I consider to be philosophy is the study of questioning the nature of things that we have no practical ability to address by experiment or observation.
I can not think of a single philosopher that would agree with you.
Thankfully "what TK considers" does not magically throw a discipline on its head or suddenly reinvent it.
If you comment on something, perhaps you should be familiar with the topic beforehand. But you didn't. As expected.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why "science" and "philosophy" are two seperate sections on library and bookstore shelves? Why Albert Camus is referred to as a philosopher and Stephen Hawking is referred to as a scientist? Perhaps you'd like to give us an example of something non-abstract that has been found to be provably true or false by philosophy, but not with the type of philosophy that a layman would call "science"?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #47 on: September 02, 2012, 06:27:26 PM »
The same reason Sir Banks is referred to as a botanist and not a biologist. Does that mean he isn't a biologist?
You are making yourself look quite silly TK.
I'd highly advise not using observations of your local library bookshelves as a basis for arguments.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #48 on: September 02, 2012, 10:34:56 PM »
Do I really need to explain that science is not separate from philosophy?

Science intersects with philosophy, though in our modern world this intersection is getting smaller.
Philosophy in ancient Greece had the weight of science today.

Natural philosophy dealt with subjects only the mind could contemplate, but some of the concepts are still valid today, like the fact that everything is built with the same matter: man and rock for example. The ancient Greeks had no way to look into atoms but they knew this. With the evolution of science we were able to prove this.

Modern natural philosophy consists of theories that are spun from the results that science has brought up so far. Theories are useful, because they set a path for research to follow.

You could be skeptic about matter being made up of atoms, because you can't see atoms.

This society believes the Earth is flat and we live in a geocentric system. Its bright members refute claims that are only verifiable by a handful of people.

That the earth is round can only be proven with indirect methods involving observation, physics and mathematics. The problem is that if the indirect proof is rock solid, FE believers will drift away from the subject core and start babbling until the thread dies, and they call themselves undefeated.

But at least I will be satisfied  ;D

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2012, 05:23:39 AM »
The same reason Sir Banks is referred to as a botanist and not a biologist. Does that mean he isn't a biologist?
You are making yourself look quite silly TK.
I'd highly advise not using observations of your local library bookshelves as a basis for arguments.

Absence of response to what should be quite an easy challenge is noted.
I don't think I make myself look silly by having the opinion that modern science has diverged in its methods so far from other branches of philosophy that it can now be considered a seperate subject, and that in the modern era the common definition of philosophy no longer includes the scientific disciplines as it once did. Much as like in 1400 all children were referred to as girls, including the male ones. These days, it's no longer the case. Your argument is also like saying that whales and monkeys are the same thing because they are mammals, whereas my view is that they are more different in a practical sense.
Feel free to advise me what I should and shouldn't use as a basis for arguments, and I shall feel free to ignore you, yet I notice you have no explanation of why science and philosophy are in seperate sections on bookshelves.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #50 on: September 03, 2012, 07:22:13 AM »
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #51 on: September 03, 2012, 07:32:49 AM »
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!

Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #52 on: September 03, 2012, 07:34:00 AM »
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!

Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "EZ definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #53 on: September 03, 2012, 07:43:48 AM »
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!

Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.

If you're being ultra picky, science could be considered a branch of philosophy if you classify it according to certain characteristics. However, in the modern world nobody does think of it like that any more.
If I'm SO wrong as Ichi makes out, how come he can't explain why science and philosophy are found on different bookshelves?
Remember, Ichi, it's not about whether or not you ever answer the question, it's about how your answers and my answers appear to an objective newbie who's just wandered in to look at the thread. Evading the question forever doesn't stop you from failing. Everyone can see you dodge and rely totally on semantics to make your point. Everyone.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #54 on: September 03, 2012, 07:51:49 AM »
Oh no. Why don't I answer the damning "bookshelf assortment" classic problem of philosophy that has plagued scholars for generations.

Seriously, stop acting as if library bookshelves are even remotely a valid basis for an argument. Absolute madness. Perhaps one day you can argue what is considered a part of the conspiracy or not by looking at how magazines are arranged in Walmart.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #55 on: September 03, 2012, 09:48:23 AM »
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!

Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "EZ definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.

Barely my definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #56 on: September 03, 2012, 10:04:18 AM »
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!

Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "EZ definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.

Barely my definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html
Annnnd  ???
Are you trying to post random links or arguing realism and empiricism are not philosophies?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2012, 10:06:10 AM by Ichimaru Gin :] »
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #57 on: September 03, 2012, 11:25:39 AM »
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!

Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "EZ definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.

Barely my definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html
Annnnd  ???
Are you trying to post random links or arguing realism and empiricism are not philosophies?

I am answering to your false claim: "Science is a branch of philosophy".
Apparently you're more interested in patronizing me that countering my arguments. Neither scientifical nor philosophical approach, my good Ichimaru G&T.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #58 on: September 03, 2012, 12:08:13 PM »
Then perhaps you should choose different links which don't delve into why science is a philosophy Cough* WIKIPEDIA*Cough
(I'll give you a clue, reread my last post about empiricism and realism)
« Last Edit: September 03, 2012, 12:13:45 PM by Ichimaru Gin :] »
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« Reply #59 on: September 03, 2012, 12:20:18 PM »
Then perhaps you should choose different links which don't delve into why science is a philosophy Cough* WIKIPEDIA*Cough
(I'll give you a clue, reread my last post about empiricism and realism)

Why don't you read more wikipedia?
I quote : "Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy.[3] However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.

In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with 'natural and physical science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics."

Which part did you get wrong?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.