Vacant privacy (the social science-based zone)

Only philosophers that take science seriously should be taken seriously.

°○°○°●°▪︎°▪︎°▪︎

What acts empirically does not necessarily measure validity with science. As Sartre formulated no less is it that experience (e.g. existence) precedes essence. Only what we interpret as reason dictates essence. This leads us to questioning why certain things are the way they are. My point is that science if not sound in its use of what is negated to be true (i.e. a thing in itself) the conclusions we draw from our errors should be scientifically resolute. An example is: no full proof medium that automatically changes what are laws. Therefore, how can science verifiably answer what is causal in a closed system where our order is left unopened. = We must apply logic first. Second is our scientifically postulated theory. (The well stated law of what is entropy.) My point here is there must be order.

We identify language as our nature permits.  

Something science happens to provide, is that without proof of any formal condition or control, we function without knowledge as binary products of reality. The truth about any philosophy done, is with an artillery of contradictory elements. We define philosophy this way. Not science dependent. Since science is a tool to operate through observational laws that govern it. My argument is observation makes us agents of philosophy.

- Marco

°●°●○°°○○°

•○°○○°○°○○○°

Marco's rebuttal:

Sotirios Makrygiannis but we are talking about an extention of the systems in which information comes through, what is without informing scientific validity.  Philosophy or what is social science causing what is empirically valid.  (i.e. observation) These are methods or to the effect that our inherent models become obsolete.  My point being the disproof of a testable hypothesis.  If not true, then you proceed to another result postulated by means of ('?') thing that is disproven.  The point being even if the hypothesis was disproven doesn't make it undefinable.  Even from a scientific end game.  The point we infer from in failure or scientifically disproved hypothesis, is when the hypothesis becoming a view that is debunked.  (It is cause and social science is the factor.)

°○●○••○○•○••☆

Sotirios Makrygiannis science does not HAVE to be (testable a hypothesis) for critical examination nor emperically valid to be philosophical (socially acceptable vs scientifically ergo:a norm)  = all observable phenomenon can be unique.  We trace what can only be understood through what is necessary vs what we KNOW may not (be necessary).  The functionality of what is at issue in this (my answer) CANNOT be dismissed as philosophical for its agency if related to science or not!  I can't make this any clearer or more specifically to a CAUSE. What factors as a common denomination in Philosophy is rooted,  therefore, THE NEGATION of science.  

Example: we can postulate that x is y - OR - that use of that 'y' is equal with x. (Even if they are not EQUAL :: HOW WOULD WE KNOW??)

Logically, our discourse will dismiss whether or not the same thing's (x or y) can be things.  If both x and y negate the other what does that REVEAL?  I would also argue it is sound that x vs y works as negation against the other being true. 

My point?

My point is being true of both x AND y... that the postulated theory (this hypothesis) can rationally, computationally - between reason and thought - obeying laws relative to HOW - both x or y BEHAVE. (e.g. we identifiably govern what is ALL ideologically undone.)  If x or y are not a resource (scientifically valid vs empirical proof) ALL our evidence LOGICALLY LOCATED. (i.e. both x and/or y act unequivolcally as dependent on the other)  This is ironic.  Ironic based on how science can also form bias in place of x vs y, as opposed to both x or y replacing the other.  

WHAT SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW. = y

SCIENCE CANNOT REPLICATE.=:x

Therefore social scientifically stated axoim is an authority against which x or y rules acting as unknown variables.

- Marco

°○○••○•••

WHAT SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW. = y

SCIENCE CANNOT REPLICATE.= x

•●●○••○○••

Please debunk the above being x vs y.