Which one is more effective way of saying? 1, 2 or 3?

Question

1. Science & philosophy can explore only whatever is unity.

2. Science & philosophy cannot explore nothingness but can explore whatever is unity.

3. Science & philosophy can explore whatever is unity but not nothingness.

Answer 1

science & philosophy basically covers everything , including nothingness

Answer 2

(1.) does not address nothingness. If the point is to make it clear that nothingness can not be explored by Science and Philosophy, then it needs to be stated and not assumed. Also, unity is not defined and could include nothingness to some people so the distinction must be made.

(3.) I just don't like it. It doesn't reiterate the verb phrase, and it has this kinda weird double negative at the end. (Not nothing..)

(2.) is the most effective because it makes it clear that nothingness and what ever is unity are being contrasted as to their relationship to Science and philosophy.

Note: I don't think Science and Philosophy are necessarily be grouped together as comparable in themselves, they are just being grouped as to their relationship to nothingness and what ever is unity.

Answer 3

why do so many people keep grouping science with philosophy?

not only is it insulting to the science world...philosophy has 'nothing' in common with science!

anyone who has attended university realizes that 'philosophy' is categorized under 'arts' while 'science' is 'science'.

it makes the ill informed appear even more so when this constantly happens!

ronin: you got my thumbs up!

Answer 4

Nothingness is a solid state.
http://www.richarddw.net/no-title.htm

Answer 5

I see nothing here, and certainly no unity .

Answer 6

Oh please. You have to define unity if you expect a decent answer to this.

And why do you NEVER pick me for best answer? I'm beginning to think you are blind to my incredible unity skills.

It's hurtful.