Murchison Meteor Questions

Yes, it is.That's why you're getting nowhere with this repetitious line of 'argument', Rob. The premise is bogus. You fail to distinguish between the methods of science and the methods of philosophy.The two are not the same. That's reality. Another equivocation. 'Inseparable' they may be, but it still does not follow that a relationship between two things makes one word a synonym for the other. It is simple-minded to think this way.On the computer you're running now, the software is 'inseparable' from the hardware. Apart from the hardware the software does not function. Does that mean computer software and computer hardware are 'the same thing'? That the two words are interchangeable? That a hardware engineer and a software engineer do the same job? No. To speak that way would confuse two different things and deny reality. The result is nonsense.To show a relationship is not to prove a synonym.I congratulate you on your interest in Einstein. You're in deep water there, though. To understand him you'll have to make an effort that goes far beyond mining his writings for useful 'God-sounding' propaganda bits. But the effort is worth making.First you need to learn how empiricism works. You need to learn its methods. The methods differ from those of philosophy. You need to learn how.Science and philosophy are both worthwhile pursuits. Both use logic and both seek to apprehend reality. But the two are based on very different premises and set very different criteria for evidence. You must take account of these differences, Rob, if you are to have anything meaningful to say on this subject.Once you get a handle on these difference in method between science and philosophy, you have mastered some of the basics. Working toward 'philosophy of science' is more advanced stuff and it can come only after this work is done. You have to possess a solid understanding of both terms before you can speak of relationships. Einstein, needless to say, had mastered the basics.'Philosophy of science' is an exploration of the question of why empiricism works as well as it does. It is necessarily a philosophical question because empirical methods alone cannot sufficiently address it. Other methods must therefore be brought to bear. One can do plenty of valid science, as Einstein himself observed, and never wonder why the method works. But Einstein was one who liked to wonder.Value questions. Seek to understand.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.