Kaluza Klein based theories are clever ways of arranging numbers, but the observations that would make them a solid scientific theory are still a long way off if they can ever be performed at all.
I don’t particularly want to bog myself down with data that’s extraneous and irrelevant to my work, thanks.You needn’t worry. I shan’t bother to enlighten you. Ignorance is bliss - but it is also short-sighted!
In other words you ignore data that doesn’t fit into your scheme of things…
No. You don’t learn to be a pianist by reading books on photography, and likewise you do not learn to perform scientific experiments in a philosophy book.
Hogwash!
Not many scientists seem to agree with you. Scientists like Feynman and Dawkins for example are very dispraging of philosophy.Hogwash!
The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon defined how scientific experiment’s are to be performed!
Have you Bacons work? I assume you probably did it somewhere along if you have a scrip or so in Science.
What I am saying is that you will never find Roger Bacon in a science curriculum, in the same way that you won’t find Pythogras in a piano class. You don’t need to be a mathematician and understand Pythgorean commas to learn to play a piano, and you don’t need to be a philosopher to be a Physicist.Have you Bacons work? I assume you probably did it somewhere along if you have a scrip or so in Science.
Nonetheless, you will understand if you have read it that he worked from the Philosophical school of Epistimology to define what existence is, how we can decide things LIKE what is this - how this causes that, how repeating experiments proves this - how we can make research validity and reliability, how we can categorise different aspects of science and the like.
If you haven’t read the work, you will understand that what you said comes across as daft, just as daft as I would sound saying Einstein came up with his theories despite science, it was really God that put the knowlege in his head.