Talk:Kenkou Cross Q&A/@comment-93.140.160.22-20140628193939/@comment-Party Vanderbilt-20140628211446

If you were all that concerned with science, you'd know that science deals with things that can be proven.

Philosophy does not.

Scientific reasoning goes, "a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h..." and so forth.

Philosophic reasoning might go that way. Or it might go, "a, b, c... d? Why not e? What is the soul of d? Might not d also be replaced with e? Might the two not go together? What might such a thing look like, and might it go good with mint jelly? Might there be moral lessons to be learned from de? Might de be God itself? If de is God, might it not be angry with us for not noticing it sooner? Or might it be a part of us, that part that gives us joy and song? And if all of that were false, what then of ed instead?"

TL/DR:

Science: Observable, quantifiable, provable. Certain until disproved.

Philophy: Not quantifiable. Not provable. Rarely if ever certain.

Biology: Science.

Physics: Science.

Medicine: Specialization of biology: Science.

Quantum Mechanics: Specialization of physics: Science.

Art: Humanity.

Music: Humanity.

Philosophy: Humanity.

Theology: Specialization of philosophy: Humanity.

Ethics and Morals: Specializations of philosophy: Humanity.

All: Integral to continued human advancement.

EDIT: ...Why are we debating philosophy and science here, of all places? o_0