[donh]

Do we really need to go back over this? Scientists do science, they do not define it. Science is defined by philosophy.

So you laughably say. Prove it.

[unlearner]

Prove it [that science is defined by philosophy].

How else can it be defined? How else could mankind have ever discovered science? Philosophical debate led to enough consensus about epistemology so that a scientific approach could be distilled from these early ideas. Philosophy is the forerunner of science.

Your extreme empiricism is self contradictory. The assumptions of scientific inquiry cannot be disproved, but also cannot be supported empirically. They can only be assumed. This is a philosophic choice. To pretend this choice isn't made is just an extreme case of denial. So if the assumptions cannot be empirically supported, and it is claimed that emirpiricism constitutes science, then the assertion is self contradictory. The only worse error would be to claim you make no assumptions, meaning that you have absolute truth (unless, of course, you do have it).

Sure, there are scientists who do science and have never given the subject much thought. (Something which underscores my point that what you believe does not effect you ability to do science, and also illustrates why being a scientist does not automatically endow the ability to define science.) Anyone who wants to debate what is and is not science is entering into a philosophical debate.

Will your proof be forthcoming that science is self defining?