TAMIK dr. Aslan:
I've been thinking: the question "Is philosophy a science?" - is a perfect example of what happens if you misuse and misunderstand language.

Would we call a religious scholar a religious person? Would we call a literary scholar a writer or a poet? Would we call an art historian a painter, composer, architect, or sculptor? In all cases, A (religious scholar, literary scholar, art historian) does not necessarily = B (religious person, writer, poet, painter, composer, architect, sculptor). The religious scholar, literary scholar, and art historian primarily study the sciences - religious studies, literary studies, and art history. These sciences systematize religion, literature, art, with the academic rigor inherent in science, does this make them sciences themselves? Of course not! They are separate fields of knowledge, separate forms of worldview.

The word "philosophy" should be divided into "philosophy" as a unique way of looking at the world, as a special way of thinking (is not a science), and "philosophical studies" as the study of the history of philosophy, its systematization (is a science).

Nalchik Chekist🚩:
The history of philosophy explains only the formation of some ideas. Philosophy itself is a science like mathematics, which uses methods of scientific cognition

TAMIK Dr. Aslan:
Give me a definition of science.

Nalchik Chekist🚩:
Science is a special kind of human activity, which has as its goal the cognition of the surrounding reality in order to use its results in the improvement of material and spiritual life.

TAMIK Dr. Aslan:
Where is the systematization?

it is rather about disciplines, science is a more specific concept

Nalchik Chekist🚩:
Cognition includes systematization

TAMIK dr. Aslan:
So in science it is assumed that there is something right and something wrong, but in philosophy as a form of thinking there is no right and wrong, it just is, specifically it is not science

Nalchik Chekist🚩:
1)Philosophy has criteria for truth too. 2)Science, like philosophy, uses these criteria during cognition

A criterion such as "just is" exists in science too, as does any uncertainty. For example hypotheses: it is impossible to say that a hypothesis is true or not until it is proved or proved wrong; or for example quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, if we operate to the usual "either/or", which is inherent in science according to you, it will turn out that these two things cannot exist together.

Everything is relative, I can advise you to study the way of ascending from the abstract to the concrete

TAMIK Dr. Aslan:
you can't prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove it, just like a theory, "prove" is said to simplify it

I'll read Ilyenkov, he has a book about it, I think.

Nalchik Chekist🚩:
Theory - a statement requiring proof; hypothesis - an assumption based on action

TAMIK Dr. Aslan:
I know this

Nalchik Chekist🚩:
An assumption can be proven

TAMIK dr. Aslan:
But proof is never one hundred percent

Nalchik Chekist🚩:
Again, everything is relative

TAMIK dr. Aslan:
you can't, read up on what non-falsifiability is

Nalchik Chekist🚩:
You won't reach absolute truth in a matter of study (except for a limited range of things)

So this is the usual proof from the contrary

TAMIK dr. Aslan:
*they don't express absolute certainty*, and reasoning why is also philosophy, i.e. it goes beyond the laws themselves to look at them from the outside

Nalchik Chekist🚩:
We can transform judgments however we want. Without lies there can be no truth, without truth there can be no lies, they are determined by their relationship to each other

All correct, how does that disprove what I said?

TAMIK Dr. Aslan:
Proof by contrary is used more in math and logic, and non-falsifiability in scientific inquiry

they can be disproved but cannot be proven.

Nalchik Chekist🚩:
By refutation, their invalidity is proven. A refutation proves the greater truth of another statement. There is, again, the question of the form of your judgment here

The question is, why call the same things by different words? Math and logic are the same sciences

TAMIK Dr. Aslan:
yes that is true, but how does it relate to what I am saying?

for example, we say "all swans are white", for a long time it was believed to be true, and the expression "black swan" was perceived almost as an oxymoron like firewater, but then a researcher found a black swan, and all evidence to the contrary in the form of its absence went into the furnace, numerous observations disproved one black swan.

so this is a classic example of a misunderstanding, we just use the language "proof" in the wrong way, proof of the opposite is proof of the falsehood of a proposition, there's nothing to argue about, proof of falsehood is the same as disproof.

but I may change my mind over time, since refutation is also in question.