Again, it use to be that way

Are you giving me definitions that your phiosophy professor gave?

nope

so not even your philosophy teacher called it a science.

Right under the breakdown

This division is not obsolete but has changed. Natural philosophy has split into the various natural sciences, especially astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and cosmology. Moral philosophy has birthed the social sciences, but still includes value theory (including aesthetics, ethics, political philosophy, etc.). Metaphysical philosophy has birthed formal sciences such as logic, mathematics and philosophy of science, but still includes epistemology, cosmology and others.

see

ignorant

Natural philosophy has split into the various natural sciences

can we get back on track to the original debate

A square is a rectangle, therefore all rectangles are squares.

before more ignorance is shown off

?

Even according to Khan's point

Which, I might add, you called me ignorant for

That is what you're arguing.

i was arguing about applied ethics

you came saying is not a science

which is false

Philosophy of science
Main article: Philosophy of science
This branch explores the foundations, methods, history, implications and purpose of science. Many of its sub-divisions correspond to a specific branch of science. For example, philosophy of biology deals specifically with the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical issues in the biomedical and life sciences. The philosophy of mathematics studies the philosophical assumptions, foundations and implications of mathematics.

Philosophy can be applied to science.

jesus fucking CHRIST

LMAO

That's literally what I see being said by Khan, correct me if I'm wrong.

a scientist is a philosopher first

if you cant udnerstand taht you are ignorant

Sure.

Because science ITSELF is philosophy.

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is NOT necessarily a square.

you are a dumbass

wow the clock on the slow mode restards

anyway you are not fist for this discussion then, you dont know what philosophy means

Well damn, man. Just throw those fallacies out there.

You just called me a dumbass and unfit to debate because we disagree on the nature of philosophy itself.

Can we agree that you just don't have the means to respond to my argument?

I'll accept that maybe you haven't considered the matter up until this point and haven't been challenged on it.

not going to debate you on a matter you have no knowledge of, and only want to go to google and loook up stuff to probe your point

I brought you definitions. As defined by Oxford, even.

And you disagreed with that definition.

And you sent me Wikipedia pages, uncited, which proved my point, and not your own.

If there is anyone in this debate who does not have the standing to argue, it has been proven to be you. And when challenged, you resorted to ad-hominem, and told me that I was not 'smart enough' to debate you on the matter. This is the play by play of our debate here so far. All you have left is ad-hominem, because the argument has been stripped from you.