PS --
This is where science and philosophy break off - Science lets the fact speak for themselves and doesn't go beyond what the conclusions are.
logically it follows that philosophers go beyond what the facts warrent. is that a reasonable thing to do? i would say no.
Water - Science states that water is comprised of 2 atmos of Hydrogen and 1 of Oxygen, it has 3 physical states: Liquid, solid and gaseous, blah, blah blah.
Philosophy express WHY water is the way it is and if it can ever be any different or if it ever was or even if water even exists beyond our perception of what water is, if it is anything at all.
starting from basic laws of QM, its possible to derive the properties of oxygen and hydrogen. from there its possible to derive the properties of water molecules and from there it is possible in huge stochastic simulations to derive the properties of macroscopical ensembles of water, or you can take a more classical approach and use navier-stokes equations to simulate water flow and optimize ship hulls, or figure out how and when the no-slip approximations of water fail which is usefull in creating microtubes and understanding the body.
If you just take a very small specific part of the litterature, namely studying when and how laminar flows turn into turbolent flows, and you will be very surpriced.
In brief, there is a huge litterature of our understanding of water, which has direct application in many, many fields from biology to engineering to basic physics.
Lets turn to philosophy... my understanding is that philosophy has contributed absolutely NILL to our understanding of water in the past 500 years. But im happy to be proven wrong. try to flesh out the answer for this question:
Philosophy express WHY water is the way it is
try to give a concise answer, like i think i did.. help me understand why this answer contibute anything usefull to our understanding of water.. when it can be used for anything usefull at all.
I have no problem with scientists being philosphers as long as they don't think that philosophy IS a science or is subjetc to the rules of sceince and it seems that many science-philosophers do just that, they pass off their philosophies as "facts" instead of what they are:
Personal, subjective, speculative and relative view points.
which "rules of science" is it that philosophy should not be subject to in your oppinion? verifiable? testable? if philosophy is just personal speculations which are not factually supported, why is it even interesting in answering questions about God?
the way you define science and philosophy is even harsher to philosophy than i would be. i just dont understand why you can define philosophy as such an empty subjective shell far removed from facts and not see that, if this is indeed the case, it cannot be used to support God or make any claims about the physical universe.
