You summed it up perfectly. What you’re saying is exactly the point I’m trying to get across. We’re just using different words.
You’re using “physics” in the sense it was used 2000 years ago when you say “from their perspective all our fields fit under physics”. I’m saying the exact same thing, only replacing “physics” with “natural science/natural philosophy”, which are the umbrella terms used today.
You even point out that “all our fields fit under physics (natural science/philosophy), except for applied science (engineering)”, which is exactly the point I’m making when saying they saw no distinction between the different natural sciences, but did distinguish between “pure science” and “engineering”.
You summed it up perfectly. What you’re saying is exactly the point I’m trying to get across. We’re just using different words.
You’re using “physics” in the sense it was used 2000 years ago when you say “from their perspective all our fields fit under physics”. I’m saying the exact same thing, only replacing “physics” with “natural science/natural philosophy”, which are the umbrella terms used today.
You even point out that “all our fields fit under physics (natural science/philosophy), except for applied science (engineering)”, which is exactly the point I’m making when saying they saw no distinction between the different natural sciences, but did distinguish between “pure science” and “engineering”.