sorry... some letters got dropped... they COULDN'T resolve where gammas came from... so assumed that they were from parallel universes or the like... but recently, i read an article (which i can't find... typical) that gamma radiation... particularly the gamma jets of black holes are just the stripped particles of matter sucked beyond the event horizon and into the core mass of the singularity.

Gamma rays come from the same place that light does, in fact gamma rays are by nature the same as light, but a couple of octaves up the EM spectrum...

When electrons in atoms are excited by an energy input and then drop down again to their nominal energy levels, or when mass is transmuted into energy, EM radiation, including gamma rays are the result... This is all described in the Bhor model and does not bother scientists at all...

On your other point, that science and philosphy are related modes of thought, that is simply quite untrue...

first off, the show i watched was about gamma-ray bursts....i don't know if that's the same thing, but what they were talkin' about were the rays emmited from massive bodies from other galaxies explodin' (such as planets)....the rays hittin' our atmosphere, from a body in another galaxy, contradicted Einstein's theory of E=MC^2.....i watched a 2 hour program on it on TLC.....so yeah, whatever....

secondly, as havin' a degree in philosophy, and havin' been to several dissertations for philosophy, and the immense amount of philosophy i have studied, and to the very point that every philosopher and philosophy professor i've ever talked to, and for the very simple nature that Analytical Philosophy is a mathematical system (just like every version of physical science is), which in itself actually stemmed from science, and the mere fact that when concernin' the validty and soundness of its justifications, science and philosophy ARE related modes of thought.....

want proof, here's an interesting lil' article i found:

http://www.friesian.com/hist-2.htm

I was arguing two days ago with an honours degree qualified philosopher who claimed that controls in scientific experiments have no value since nothing can intrinsically be learned from them... this highlights an obvious and diametric schism in the way that philosophers and scientists are trained to think...

i never once said that philosophers and scientists were "trained" to think the same.....look back at what i said

that last line seems to be in accord with what your friend is saying, which i would agree with

note the word "related"

So not once did I ever make the claim that philosophy and science are "trained" to think the same. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that they don't share some of the same principles. Both use justifications. Philosophy uses "logical justifications." Science uses justifications based on "physical laws."

And science has generally always followed in the footsteps of philosophy. Whether science was diety-based (like some of the Greek sciences, and the Medieval era as a whole; Medieval philosophy also had some diety-based conclusions, as is apparent with the popularity of theology during that era) or whether science is mathematical based (as physical sciences are), they have gone hand in hand with philosophical inquiries of the time.

I'm merely trying to convey to you that philosophy is closely related to science more-so than it is to religion based on the principles used. Humans generally regard science as fact, based on physical laws. Humans rarely consider philosophy as fact, why? Because philosophy relies solely on the principles of logic. If you have A, then you will have B; yet, everytime you have B does not mean that you will have A. As confusing as it sounds, this is a logical assertion. And for the fact that logic is based on the principles of "definition," humans seem to group philosophy in with religion, which I don't understand. And the abundance of the appearance of the "metaphysical" in philosophical inquires doesn't help much, since religion is, in itself, based on metaphysical principles. (God is a metaphysical entity...philosophers would agree, scienctists would agree [although scientists would argue that the metaphysical doesn't exist more-so than philosophers would]; religions on the other hand would argue that God is metaphysical, while at the same time some of those religions [if not all of them] might argue that He is also physical.)

But as I'm trying to show you, philosophy and science are more-so related than philosophy and religion. To continue with the "footsteps"--it hasn't been until recently that philosophy has followed in the footsteps of science--as is evident with the birth of analytical philosophy. Analytical philosophy itself can be construed as mathematical; symbolic logic itself is a form of math per-se, using symbols rather than numbers to reach conclusions which are considered as valid, sound, and factual.

Now, I myself am not as well trained in analytical philosophy as I am in continental philosophy. I was fortunate enough to attend a university that taught both continental and analytical philosophy, but my emphasis and passion was more for continental philosophy. Do me a favor, ask your friend if he is a continental philosopher or an analytical philosopher. For, there is a difference in style.

But in the end, I don't know what else I can say to help you understand that philosophy and science share such strong similarities in their principles of reasoning, logic, and their justifications. Is it really so hard to grasp that philosophy and religion do not share such strong similarities in their principles of reasoning, logic, and justifications?

Modern science has really only been around since the time of the renaissance, although there have been trail blazers like Occam who while not scientists in the modern sense have certainly put down some useful precepts...

The ancient Greek "scientists" while they came up with some great ideas, lacked the will and the means and the modes of thought to test these ideas experimentally to see if they would resist attempts to falsify them, and so were not really scientists as such, more philosophers...

I will ask my friend if he is continental or analytical, I suspect the latter because of some of the arguements we've had...

I don't know if this will shed any light, but we argued one night over a thought experiment involving taking somebody's brain cutting it in half and transplanting one half into another body, the idea being to find out where this persons individuality lay... I don't know if I'm explaining that very well, but perhaps you know the thought experiment I'm talking about...

My first reaction was that the experiment was absurd, since cutting a persons thalamus in two would mean instant death, so he asked me to suspend my disbelief on that point...

I came up with a scientific thought experiment whereby you would take four groups of people. the first group, you cut their brains in two, transplanting one half into another body, the second group you cut the right hand side of the brain out and destroy it. The third group, you cut the left hand side out and destroy it, and the fourth you do nothing to at all...

My philosopher friend thought that the first group were the only relevant one and that the other three groups served no purpose whatsoever. My reaction to that was that without the other three groups to act as a control (ie experimental variables put in place to show that the experiment itself is not affecting the data) in the experiment, your results would be rubbished by the entire scientific community, and the scientists who invigilated the paper you were writing wouldn't even let it get to the publishing stage, but more importantly, it wouldn't get as far as this in the first place because when you cut someone's thalamus in half, they die...

The point being, he couldn't understand my way of thinking at all, and I think that this thought experiment about where the soul resides is mystical nonsense...

I love it when I type out a lengthy response, and it doesn't post. And my dumb ass didn't copy it. Ho-hum

Okay, quick run down of what I said.

Yes, indeed, continental philosophy really doesn't have any restrictions. It restricts itself merely by other logical laws. No continental philosopher would argue that "empiricism" is valid. Analytical philosophy, which is practical in nature, restricts itself to logical laws, but (from what it seems to me, and remember, I'm not an analytical philosopher) it also restrict itself to things of "relevance." Being that, analytical philosophy always seemed more practical. Hence, it sounds to me like your friend might be continental, but i could be wrong.

But in the end, philosophy doesn't really restrict itself with physical laws. I mean, it can (depending on the philosophy) but philosophy is, in a sense, seeking the ultimate definition, thus it cares only about logical theories. And I can see where some say science is more practical whereas philosophy is hocus-pocus, but if it weren't for philosophy, science would've had a hell of a time evolving...

As your thought experiement. I think what your friend was getting at, was that group 1 only has any relevance because of its concentration pertaining to theories of the self, as well as philosophies pertaining to the mind.

Group 2 & 3 don't really have any concentration on the self, and very little on the philosophies of the mind.

Group 4, well, it's been done...but it would be a nice reference point.

But yeah, philosophy would be interested in group 1. It could be used to help justify, or counter-argue, other philosophical thoughts (such as dualism, epiphenomenalism, phenomenalism, etc. etc. etc.)

And um, your last line...the thought experiment having to do with the "mystical nonsense" about the soul. Um...what?

The last line is just me... Mystical nonsense to me constitutes any phenomenon that can't be seen, heard, smelled, touched or tasted...

That said, I do have a number of weighty tomes on ghosts the paranormal, I aboslutely love M.R. James, Poe and Sheridan Le Fanu stories... I have an interest in Wicca, a friend who dowses ouija boards with a pendulum (don't ask), oh yeah, and Aleister Crowley and Starhawk are two of my personal heroes...

Very strange...

And I've no idea why that posted three times!?!

Me either but its gone

Dyshade

maybe it was some type of mystical nonsense?

so, i guess you don't agree with metaphysics then? or the metaphysical nature of things?

metaphysics is Greek for "bullshit" is it not?

ah, well.....i think this is where science is wrong.....

One of my problems with science is that it's become encumbered with a lot of metaphysical baggage now... Instead of "here be dragons" we now have "here be superstrings" written on the maps, and with no way whatsoever to prove or disprove it apart from a mathematical model that has lots of magic numbers inserted in it and an infinite number of possible solutions, we're back to faith again...

The trouble is that our theories have now transcended our comprehension. For example, it is utterly impossible for a human being to visualise four dimensional spacetime, but we know it exists because of observations made on the speed of light...

see, this is where i think philosophy can come in and help, like you for instance....

well, if the reasoning is there, if the logic is there, and it's independent from us (in the sense of empirical observations....more or less) then it can be, it can exist.....

i mean, you don't have to go as far as "four dimensional space".....you can easily take "gravity" for example....we can't see, although we claim we can "feel it" (empirically.....for in space, gravity is virtually non-existent), but it's true proof lies within its relationship to other things.....like us, the fact that we're "stuck" here.......

we can comprehend this.....just like we can comprehend things outside our empirical observations.....like four dimensional space, unicorns, God for that matter.....

there's a whole crap loud of philosophical justifications to prove such theories, that suggest (with logical justification) that there exist things not external, not material, not physical, yet can still be "comprehended"......

but, i guess it truly does boil down to one's perception......does the metaphysical exist? most philosophers agree, all religions agree (whether they know it or not), and even a handful of scientists agree..........

Gravity is actually one thing that we have very little understanding of at all... We can predict it's effects, but a quantum theory of gravity is proving very elusive... The only models we have that work at the moment are in metric tensors that require the invokation of hyperdimensions that exist in realms froever hidden from us...

These models are utterly opaque to all but a few specialists who have spent years studying them, so you can imagine how little the layman understands about gravity...