[betty boop]

That true. But it does mean that whatever it is you're doing it with isn't science.

Philosophy is every bit as dependent on logic and reason as science is. It just has a different field of inquiry.

[tacticalogic]

Philosophy is every bit as dependent on logic and reason as science is. It just has a different field of inquiry.

If that were entirely true, there wouldn't be any debate, because there wouldn't be any contention over who's "field of inquiry" is being intruded on.

[Revolting cat!]

Philosophy is every bit as dependent on logic and reason as science is.

And all these debates have been philosophical in their essence, me thinks, with neither side recognizing their nature. I suspect that Darwin, or anyone of his age, schooled in the contemptible to our generations "liberal arts" would recognize that.

The "scientists" of today, as exemplified by many here can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're" and "its" and "it's", while the Latin names for your posterior roll from their tongues like a McDonald's scientifically developed artificial low everything-bad-for-you ice cream.

Let them stick to developing life saving synthetic sweeteners and leave the questions of Life to theologians and philosophers.