Augustus
…
Not true, its sort of over exaggeration of what science actually does.
What does science do? Is that not a question of philosophy?
Science does not prove anything. It observes and reports.
And when it observes and reports, how does it know how to interpret what it observes and reports?
How does it know what can be said and can not be said based on these observations
The problem with philosophy is its foundations were born in times of mythological explanations that still resonate through the practice. Its easy to make arguments out of nothing based on personal bias.
But the foundations of science are built on philosophy. If philosophy is nothing but hot air, then 'science' is nothing but hot air.
Nothing worse then a bad philosopher who uses his teaches his personal bias.
Or a bad scientist influenced by personal bias, careerism, flawed methodology, flawed statistical inference, flawed understanding of probability, overstated conclusions etc.
But what constitutes a bad scientist, scientific ethics, flawed methodology, flawed statistical inference, flawed understanding of probability, overstated conclusions etc are questions of philosophy.
They could argue all day debating the shade black and its possible application as a color
They could, but on another day they might be creating the foundations on which 'science' is based, or working out what 'science' actually tells us.
Science is inseparable from philosophy. You don't get science without philosophy.
How do we know what we know (or, perhaps more importantly, what we don't know)?