>>92111Why act like an ass? Philosophy and science do not have borders, its not a class at school that differentiate each other.
>That's not a very good definition of either metaphysics or ontologyIt wasn't a definition.
>These aren't philosophical questions.Everything is a philosophical question.
>humans are social animals. That is scientific fact.Alright, give me scientific proof and we can put it to bed.
>regardless of your metaphysical claimsI made no claims.
>scientific claims are claims about experienceThats empiricism (the scientific and philosophic method cannot be split apart, why try so hard?)
>scepticism to its extremeThats solipsism
Solipsism cannot be "scientific" nor scientific because its noumenal
>scientific system of investigation of our own experiences, rather than a question of the fundamental existence of that which we experience outside of our experiencing of itExperiencing (empiricism, which you confuse with "hur science") leaves the being reflective, if not for the source of the experience. Sensing (which you so fail to address) is the matter on all of empiricism stands. Since you postulated none, and went to town with the "scientific fact" button. I don't even know where to continue, i swear, the only guy who did marginally worse than you in proving a point was
>>92013 guy.
>>92122Religion = system of beliefs
Ideology = set of ideas and aims
Philosophy = neither of those.
But by all means, don't let me rock the gravy train.
