1 is wrong. 3 is stupid. Convince me otherwise

1) science is founded on taking random samples — Gregory

Obtaining representative cross-sections in order to validate results isn't equivalent to "random" in a metaphysical sense.

) if compatabilism is true, you can never know if you have a random sample — Gregory

I don't follow this.

Let me try to explain further. I've simply combined a little Hume with idea that matter could be in complete control of us all the while we bring free. This shows, I think, that the physical sciences don't deal in truth

If we can't get around matter with free will (saying "I did it randomly and it came up always with the same result", maybe the objects fell at the same rate only when Galileo dropped them, he could have thought. Science says nothing certain because we can't understand what "laws" mean

1) science is founded on taking random samples — Gregory

This is not true. Right out of the gate. What makes you think science is founded on taking random samples.

This is not true. Right out of the gate. What makes you think science is founded on taking random samples. — DingoJones

When Galileo drops his objects three times, is the law that "when this physical body named Galileo drops these objects three times, they fall at the same rate" or is it another law? If I witness a person get there head cut off, I can know that this kills people because I am a organic organism too. But physical laws (physics) is another matter. I don't think it's a science at all. I doubt the big bang and EVERYTHING about physic's cosmology. They are always changing their opinions. Back to Galileo. If compatabilism was false and free will was in Galileo, he could randomly select times to drop the objects and get a general law out of it. IF compatabilism is true, this is not so and the random factor coming from free will is stymied. Philosophy is fatal to physics

Well, it's just a presumption that drops are drops no matter when. If this was dependend on time physicists were very interested to find out. Just so that they can change their opinion.

You could twist your argument: It is impossible for a voluntarist to gather representative samples from nature as he always just sees them if he chooses to look at them. So he can only speak of objects he chooses to witness. The point? Utter nonsense.

What makes you think science is founded on taking random samples? The “ samples” are not random, and they arent the foundation of science. The samples, by which I take you to mean experimentation, are carefully constructed and monitored and usually very specifically targeted. The foundation of science is the scientific method, and nothing else even comes close to science as far as discovering knowledge/truth.
The changing of scientific conclusions is evidence the method works, not that it doesnt work. You have it backwards. The fact that science changes its mind is because they get new information which allows them to draw a better conclusion or identify bad ones.

The scientific method is a hoax. They can't define when a law is stable. Something changes and they presume a new force, which is arbitrary because it might be the old force acting out its last sequence

Why is it so reliable if its a hoax?

3) so philosophy is a higher science than the physical "sciences" — Gregory

It is clear that in philosophy all statements are made with a certain interest. In my opinion the reputation of philosophy suffers from the fact that those interests do not get reflected. My guess is that they cannot be reflected as this would contradict those interests.

Why is it so reliable if its a hoax? — DingoJones

Who says it is reliable? They throw us a theory which, they say, is 70 percent chanced to be accurate. Then they throw that one out for one with 80 percent accuracy, then 90 percent. But if the 70 percent theory and the 80 percent theory were wrong, maybe the 90 percent theory is wrong. They will never get to a hundred percent. Maybe dark matter is the only thing that has force in the universe and moves everything. There is no way to prove otherwise. Maybe dark matter doesn't exist. Maybe the moon goes into Saturn when nobody is looking. There is no objective standard in physics. It's all arbitrary. Hume squashed physics centuries ago, and yet most people think think it's objectively true, regardless of the spiritual consequences

It is clear that in philosophy all statements are made with a certain interest. In my opinion the reputation of philosophy suffers from the fact that those interests do not get reflected. My guess is that they cannot be reflected as this would contradict those interests. — Heiko

Realizing that matter could have infinite aspects (and forces) is an agnosticism that I think leads to a spiritual way of thinking

Realizing that matter could have infinite aspects (and forces) is an agnosticism that I think leads to a spiritual way of thinking — Gregory

So if you are in spirituality why do you even bother with science? Your could know that arguing scientifically you get scientific explanations. Modern sciences have emancipated themselves from more encompassing systems.

I'm rereading Hegels philosophy of mind. I want also to read his philosophy of nature and his logics. He definitely thought philosophy superior to physics, calling the latter the poorest kind of knowledge. Humans getting to the moon was nothing other, perhaps, than physicists being the means for.matter to present itself in a form and get us there (to another "planet"). I don't believe physicists have any true knowledge of anything

I don't believe physicists have any true knowledge of anything — Gregory

No, they just accumulate power.

Whats more reliable than science? Whats your superior alternative?

To always search for certain knowledge wherever it leads: that's the alternative of the world's spiritual advice. If we have no certain knowledge of what matter is, how can one have faith that he understands matter's sequences? Philosophy is at least prior to science.

Certain knowledge is very elusive, as far as I know its just Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum. No other knowledge is 100% certain. Even if that weren’t the case, the pursuit of certain knowledge is not at odds with science.
Im sorry to say, the only thing you’ve gotten right so far is philosophy is prior to science. I agree with that.

But philosophy also threatens the foundations of physics. The series Closer to Truth poised the question "what if the laws of physics change" to physicists. The latter failed to see that maybe the laws didn't change but were misunderstood. Laws can never be seen. Certain knowledge is very hard

Ok, but can you respond to what Im saying rather than just pivoting to something else? You make a point, i make a counter-point, and you just “but” into something else. It makes cogent communication more difficult.

Certain knowledge is very elusive, as far as I know its just Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum. — DingoJones

The cogito can be doubted. Doubt of it and science is part of the philosophical endevour

No other knowledge is 100% certain. Even if that weren’t the case, the pursuit of certain knowledge is not at odds with science. — DingoJones

False. The relativism of material laws is fundamental to doing philosophy. I've seen writers on this forum defend Hume and yet also defend physic's validity. They can't see that they are being inconsistent

One of the foundations of physics is use of the distinction between the random and the necessary. Of course there is no way to tell the difference between those in the real world. What seems necessary may be random and vice versa

The cogito can be doubted. Doubt of it and science is part of the philosophical endevour — Gregory

No it cant. The act of doubting requires a doubter, the doubter must exist. The nature of that existence might be any number of things (brain in a vat, a gods dream, anythings possible) but that it exists is beyond the ability to doubt, it is the one true certainty. To expand the classic “I think therefore I am”:
“I think, therefore I am *something*. Meaning if you can doubt, then you are something doubting, something that exists.

False. The relativism of material laws is fundamental to doing philosophy. I've seen writers on this forum defend Hume and yet also defend physic's validity. They can't see that they are being inconsistent — Gregory

I think you are confusing human lack of 100% certainty with some brand of material relativism. The fact we cant be 100% certain or that science can be wrong doesnt mean it isnt describing the material world, nor that the material world is beyond its measure. As I asked you, do you offer something more reliable than science?
Also, could you explain how relativity of material laws is fundamental to philosophy? Im not sure what you mean.

No it cant. The act of doubting requires a doubter, the doubter must exist. The nature of that existence might be any number of things (brain in a vat, a gods dream, anythings possible) but that it exists is beyond the ability to doubt, it is the one true certainty. To expand the classic “I think therefore I am”:
“I think, therefore I am *something*. Meaning if you can doubt, then you are something doubting, something that exists. — DingoJones

Maybe nothingness is doubting

I think you are confusing human lack of 100% certainty with some brand of material relativism. The fact we cant be 100% certain or that science can be wrong doesnt mean it isnt describing the material world, nor that the material world is beyond its measure. As I asked you, do you offer something more reliable than science?
Also, could you explain how relativity of material laws is fundamental to philosophy? Im not sure what you mean. — DingoJones

Physics is founded on a static view of the universe that can not be proven over a dynamic view/perspective. Seeing this is through a reasoning that I believe is important in philosophical studies. The science perspective in the Chronicles of Narnia had a big influence on my thinking when I was young. Pushing the limit until the point of saying "is anything possible" is the only way to finally get certain knowledge, as far as I can see

Maybe nothingness is doubting — Gregory

Sure, maybe but I see no reason to think thats the case. I stated the reasoning why we can be certain of our own existence, are you conceding that point or did you have a counter-argument?

Physics is founded on a static view of the universe that can not be proven over a dynamic view/perspective. Seeing this is through a reasoning that I believe is important in philosophical studies. The science perspective in the Chronicles of Narnia had a big influence on my thinking when I was young. Pushing the limit until the point of saying "is anything possible" is the only way to finally get certain knowledge, as far as I can see — Gregory

What certain knowledge do you think you have?

The self can be doubted, so the regularities of matter can be doubted as well. I can't state anything I know for sure, in words. I feel like I'm climbing a staircase towards the absolute thought. I am he who thinks himself, as Hegel would say. I find him to be my ultimate spiritual master. If God existed separate from me I would kill him. He is not dead so I am God. "But it is only as uniting, subjectively with objectivity that the mind has its wits about it." - Hegel, who spelled soul as " seele", and I believe had a huge advantage over Einstein. Sorry for the rant

Ya, most of that is lost on me but the self cannot be doubted, at least not by the self (I could doubt others peoples sense of self but not my own). Its just incoherent to think otherwise.

Ya, most of that is lost on me but the self cannot be doubted, at least not by the self (I could doubt others peoples sense of self but not my own). Its just incoherent to think otherwise — DingoJones

I doubt my existence more often than I believe in it. I must be in a different state of mind

They will never get to a hundred percent. — Gregory

That's hundred percent correct. I suggest avoiding getting on an airplane because the laws of physics could change and your plane could crash and tunnel into the center of the earth. Same thing about driving in a car - you could be going down the highway and the car could turn into a giant caterpillar and eat you. In fact, you could turn into a caterpillar before you finish reading this sentence.

You never know anything with 100% certainty.