except in extreme cases (quantum physics, for example, where the borders tend to disappear).
alrik i understand why we can't understand each other if you consider that quantum physics is an extreme case. For me it is more the model of what science is, and even of what science was before. Why? because with their own tools and methods other scientific fields have integrated some part of theoretic revolution that were at works in quantum physics, and especially in quanta mechanics. And i don't really know what is an extreme case of theory in science. if quantum theory is, mathematical game's theory or fractal theory are also also, chaos theory is, and why newtonian mechanics shouldn't be? As it is quantum mechanics is much more general than newtonian mechanics, so why should it be an extreme case?
Besides, there are *very* few Scientists who are ral Philosophers
For XXth Century: Lord Bertand Russel, Wittgenstein, Kuhn, many others a bit less known and probably more or an equal number that philosophers who weren't Scientists. if by real Philosophers you mean Metaphysician (but why? why should be philosophy reduced to Metaphysics?), i would say Wittgenstein (in a way) and Hintikka. Anyway there are many philosophers, Scientists or not who have tried to reconciliate metaphysics with formal logics (logics as the formal logos of science). Even if there have very few to do the one with the other, i will say Hans Georg Gaddamer and Haako Hinttika, especially.
You could either be a Chemist or an Archaeologist, but not both at the same time
more or less true. There are many physicians who are mathematicians too though. And yet concepts in physics and mathematics are clearly not the same. To begin with Infinity as mathematicians have an unlimited undenumbrable infinite which is very strange for physicians. (And to say the truth for philosophers). Hm... Archaelogia is not a science, Alrik. But anyway it is true that sciences are a bit too specialized for anyone having a good global view of it.
Are you sure you are not confounding science and têknè? If there is a hiatus it's more probably between science and technics than between philosophy and science. Not the same thing.
That is - in a nutshell - exactly what I've tried to say above. We don't really"discover. It's already ther, and "discovery" is an illusion - Mother Nature (the Universe) only gives it to us, because we've "found" it. If we hadn't "found" it, it wouldn't be "true".
hmm... what is making a theory true is that:
1) scientific community accepts it.
2) it is coherent with the ensemble of anterior theories.
for the status this truth may "ontologically" have, i don't know. It is not what is the most important in science, as it is not really depending on science.
At that time, people tried to explain everything using Logic and the Ratio and material sciences
But it was always like that. In Ancient times, people were explaining phenomen with astrology because they thought astrology was a science.
What do you call logic, alrik?
