I always had trouble with philosophers. To honor them, I posted a story a few weeks back. Oops. It wont let me post it. So here is the story, you can see it on my home page.
Presumably, NH is talking about "mik" quoted in the OP where I used the phrase "misuse of philosophy." I disagree. I believe him to be an ignorant troll. He asserted his claimed 170+ IQ gave him the right to "question authority" which is obviously special pleading and an authoritarian claim on its face. Embrace of the statement the clocks "more slowly at higher velocities" makes no physical sense because this would allow us to progressively refine an absolute standard of rest as the state of motion where clocks tick fastest. This absolute standard of rest was what the Michelson–Morley experiment and all of its successors were designed to uncover and famously failed. Neither can Galilean Relativity save the statement (Galilean relativity has absolute time, but no universal standard of rest) because if two clocks are in motion relative to each other and each clock must tick "more slowly at [it's relatively higher velocity]" and by the transitive property of ordering one arrives at the contradiction that a clock must tick slower than itself. Time standards used to be solar-based and closely tied to one's position on Earth. Astronomers developed corrections to raw sun dial readings to better approximate a time standard by which celestial motions moved more uniformly. Eventually mechanical (later electronic) clocks became reliable time-keepers that needed only to by synchronized with local events like the sun reaching the zenith (noon). As mechanized transport and fast communication networks (railroad and telegraph) developed, for the purposes of trade, local solar standards of time keeping were replaced with time zone so that larger regions could be synchronized and actions coordinated. This is a man-made convention and has no connection with the physical concept of absolute time. In satellite systems like GPS and television program delivery, a global convention of synchronization has been established (misleadingly called Universal Time) but this is just part of a man-made synchronization procedure built upon a convenient, if imaginary, coordinate system centered on the Earth. In UT, 2012-05-06 05:00:00 has a well defined meaning, but its meaning is different from the absolute time of Galileo and Newton. It is merely a man-made label for events even if an equally valid system would label those same events with non-synchronous times. I'm thinking of: \(E \vec{u} = c^2 \vec{p} \\ E^2 = \left( mc^2 \right)^2 + \left( p c \right)^2 \\ ( c^2 - u^2 ) \left( \Delta t \right)^2 = ( c^2 - u'^2 ) \left( \Delta t' \right)^2 = c^2 \left( \Delta \tau \right)^2 \) Which relate the coordinate energy (E), coordinate velocity (u), coordinate momentum (p), mass (m), elapsed coordinate time ( \(\Delta t\) ) and elapsed proper time ( \(\Delta \tau\) ) for a free particle in an inertial coordinate system. These were derived from the physics of the universe and are incompatible with absolute coordinate time or absolute proper time.
I'd say it's bollocks. Can you quote the philosophers involved in this "tension"? As I recall, the high profile pests who have wanked on about the demise, actual or impending, of philosophy, are exactly two in number: Hawking and Krauss. And I seriously doubt that the fact that both of these have had flaws in their thinking pointed out by professional philosophers, is coincidental.
As has been previously asserted the philosophy, including logic, has some very useful shortcuts. For example: if an assumption is assumed as true and leads to a paradox, this means that assumption is false.
Science as we know today started with Newton's Laws of Motions . Newton published his Science in a book titled 'Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy' . So , as per Newton , Science is that part of Philosophy ; which follows mathematical principles . There may be some part of Philosophy which does not follow mathematical principles or for which the mathematical principles are not yet discovered . So, we can say that Science is subset of Philosophy .
