[js1138]

Science obviously embodies assumptions, but the question is whether working science requires formal philosophy, and the answer is no.

No more than engineering, gardening or motorcycle maintenance requires formal philosophy.

Science is empirical, which means it is driven by findings rather than by formal deduction. There are, of course, people who follow along behind and tidy things up, but the process of discovery is pretty messy.

[gobucks]

"Science obviously embodies assumptions, but the question is whether working science requires formal philosophy, and the answer is no."

Ok. I see. Maybe YOU can help with a helpful link which elaborates a bit more on that 'no'? And, maybe also a link which discusses why so many irrational folks out there, maybe like me, are susceptible to believing the answer is indeed yes. I mean, I have asked this before, if 'science' was so robust, why do so few embrace its central themes, despite the fire hose of data thrown at them?