@dleetr Sorry, but instead, science and philosophy have been fully demarcated so

@dleetr Sorry, but instead, science and philosophy have been fully demarcated so that they are as independent as science and logic. Even in the beginning the aristotelian empirical competed with the platonic literary and the theological supernatural. I know this comes as a surprise, but the evolution of the logics, philosophy(platon) and natural philosophy(aristotle) have fully demarcated and that is because they depend on different constraints. In other words, philosophical rationalism is a verbal and textual logic dependent upon falsehoods (non-contradiction) absent cost and causality. It is, at best, a set logic and despite the failure of non-contradictino, and the absence of completeness, and the fallacy of justificatoino, it has evolved into a system of sophistry from which philosophers have done more harm in history than good – the opposite of the scientists. We can demarcate all the logics: Mathematics depends only on an ideal positional logic. Althoritmic logic depends on operational possibility. Science depends on realism naturalism operationalism and testmony. Economics adds rational choice and reciprocity. And the logic of decidability adds construction from first principles, completeness and limits. And Law depends on the additional constraint of warrantability, restitutability, and limits of liability – and together they form the science of the logics.