Suesa! Thank you for talking to me! (or "at me, or whichever...)...lol
I didn't say that science sucks!! I don't think that, quite the opposite. It's the best way to justify ideas about scientific things!
Do you actually do science? I've worked at it since 1970.
What I said is that the scientific definition of science is broader than most people think, and that science has its limits . Do you disagree with that? Either way is fine with me.
Anyway, thanks for communicating. You're not the only one who disagrees with my ideas! My concern is justification. If that's not science then who does it better?!
Mike
I've got to back @Suesa up on this one- as interesting as philosophy is, philosophy articles aren't really the kind of content the steemSTEM community is looking for.
I think there's a room for a very small amount philosophy in steemSTEM, but only under the proviso that it's only a part of a science oriented article, is relevant to the scientific topic, and/or is specifically philosophy of science related. It should play second fiddle to the actual STEM content of the specific article. It's the same principle that applies to anecdotal stories or humor in steemstem posts- they're acceptable additions to an article, but can't be its focus. However useful Thomas Kuhn's ideas on scientific revolutions are, for instance (and they are super useful), they really don't fit super well in the types of content the steemSTEM community and curators look for. And they do have a definite image of their ideal content.
If you're actually looking for a precise definition of science used by steemSTEM... I dunno, go with a Popperian definition of science that relies on falsifiability via empirical data? That basically works fine here, and explains well enough why philosophy doesn't count. That's not the definition explicitly used by steemSTEM, (I haven't really seen one of those), but like much of the scientific community, they're... just not that worried about philosophy, and I don't think they're wrong not to be. Philosophy of science doesn't really help that much in, say, studying the specific rates of mineral leaching from granite in tropical climes. It's more of use in helping philosophers and others understand what scientists are actually doing.
It sounds like your content would actually do pretty well under the philosophy tag, I highly recommend it.
I would also recommend not questioning peoples' credentials to their face as you did to Suesa below- yes, she certainly does science, as you could probably figure out with a few minutes perusing her profile. It's a little rude.