Philosopher makes a claim

>philosopher makes a claim
>brings up anecdotal evidence, appeals to authority from prior philosophers and guesswork

>scientist makes a claim
>backed up by evidence

"evidence"

>external world doesn't exist
>thinks he can find evidence

Report all scientism for not being Veeky Forums
Bump all philosophy

Comparing philosophy and science is comparing apples to oranges memeposter

Say that to my Veeky Forumsce.

>make a strawman claim about the activity of philosophers
>backs it up by the very reason it makes the claim a strawman

Some people are just too illiterate to grasp the nature of philosophy and its dialectical processes.

Sage.

Well, that's because most philosophy comes down to opinions (ethics, politics, esthetics), idiotic fantasies (ontology) or self-evident crap. Occasionally it has an astute observation or makes a reasonable assertion for how society might work better, but comparing it to science is pointless, because science progresses..

"Philosophy is the field that hasn't progressed in 2000 years, whereas science has. Philosophical speculations about physics and the nature of science are not particularly useful, and have had little or no impact upon progress in [science]."
—Lawrence Krauss

"Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about [the big] questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time. Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."
—Stephen Hawking

"Except for a patina of twenty-first century modernity, in the form of logic and language, philosophy is exactly the same now as it ever was; it has made no progress whatsoever. We philosophers wrestle with the exact same problems the Pre-Socratics wrestled with [so we must concede] philosophy’s inability to solve any philosophical problem, ever."
—Eric Dietrich

"science" is nothing more than natural philosophy kiddo

Exactly fucking this. To think that people who read and know words would fall prey to these silly semantic games separating "science" from "philosophy," as if both weren't basically the same fucking thing.

Just because science began as one aspect of natural philosophy doesn't make them the same thing today in modern terms. Stop pretending to be stupid.

Just because science is considered completely different (if not the exact opposite) by reddit in 2016 doesn't somehow magically make them not the same intrinsically linked thing they always were and still are.

You are the one who should stop pretending.

they are fundamentally the same process, regardless of how many fancy words philosophers use or shiny gadgets scientists use.

>observation(s) therefore generalization

Philosophy is just science where the evidence is scant and the hypotheses difficult to test.

Some forms of philosophy are: others rely entirely on semantics and absurd propositions, and are eternally unverifiable. That superficially resembles bad science and initial hypotheses, but that is a far cry from them being the same thing.

>when science does it it's "bad science" and doesn't count
>when philosophy does it it's representative of the whole field and great proof for my silly thesis

oh boy haha

If you have a single philosophical assertion that's verifiable, feel free to share.

If you have a single "scientific" assertion that's actually fully and truthfully verifiable, feel free to share.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Are you kidding? Humans need oxygen to survive. Do I need to add thousands more, or are we about to witness some dazzling expanded philosophical definition of "actually fully and truthfully verifiable" that demonstrates why science works, and philosophy doesn't?

I would recommend you check that little theory of yours by depriving yourself of oxygen for an extended period of time my friend

>he doesn't know what a theory is
science has never proved anything true. The history of science is proving things false and putting a better theory in their place. They are never asserted as fact because no matter how obvious or correct they may seem, the future always might have a better answer.

A a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation. I presented one, and you kids have nothing but blather in response. Have a good day, philosophers.

Best part is how they treat any new theory that they find "evidence" for so they can all agree to pretend they figured something out this time like the word of almighty God and anyone who prefers to stick with the last hot new theory, go with a new one or simply disagree is a fucking idiot

What happend with the stupid Philosophy board?

...