> This is a common view amongst people who have never studied philosophy I really should take offence here with this statement ;). >You may say whatever a dec

> This is a common view amongst people who have never studied philosophy I really should take offence here with this statement ;). >You may say whatever a decision a scientist makes on concepts such as these is obviously the best - but then history would show you totally incorrect. That wasn't what I meant at all. I meant it is normal for scientific evidence to be part of answer for philosophical question, and there is no conflict to be found with that. In fact, up until the middle of last century when science becomes too specialized, it's fairly normal for scientist and mathematicians to also be engaging in lot of philosophy (Bertrand Russell and Hilbert comes to mind). Several branches of logics are also intertwined with philosophy development. The seemingly separation of science and philosophy nowadays is more a matter of specialization than anything (there is a quote on this). "Vital force" was an incorrect scientific hypothesis, but the philosophical question of "is there anything fundamentally difference between life and non-life objects" is answered by scientific advancement. And I said that specific philosophical questions can be made obsolete, just as scientific questions can be made obsolete and irrelevant. That is no indictment on either philosophy or the scientific method. From my understanding, science is more the concern of facts, and philosophy is the framework for study and interpretation of those facts ("truths", if you will).