Deeply disagree. Philosophy of natural science purports to find truth and is wholly unconcerned with gathering evidence and conforming theory to find agreement with evidence.

Philosophy is instead an arrogant self-absorbed pursuit that does not embrace discarding incorrect ideas that run counter to evidence and the scientific method.

The law of gravity as newton wrote it was not wrong because of some syntactic trickery or other PNS complaint, it was right until a newer and more complete theory replaced it that supported more evidence . Math proves reality not contra-negatives

@Bullgator Yes I agree with you that philosophy is often in conflict with science. As often are parent and child, and I am no great lover of philosophy. But, if it is in conflict with science, then it is bad failed philosophy, because any good philosophy will recognize the primacy of science and its methods, if it does not, then you know that it is not good philosophy, and there is certainly a lot of bad out there.

In part because, there will always be people, narcissists especially, who reject science and even mainstream thinking generally. Because if you accept those, then there is no scope for you to pose as owning something special, which of course is what the narcissist most wants. So the vain egos have to turn away from mainstream knowledge, and create the pretence that they can find arcane wisdom, in things like bad philosophy, religious apologetics and meaningless terms like spirituality, in order to gain the power to pose as gurus and prophets and other vanity projects.

But philosophy was still the parent of science, Newton for example, called himself a philosopher, since the word science hardly existed then. And there are some subjects which simply can not be addressed by science alone, for which you need to reason and attempt to use logical thought, building hopefully on the science, but unsupported by direct experimental evidence. Then whether you like it or not, you are doing philosophy.

Sadly yes, modern philosophy is often of little real value, and is full of wild pretensions, but that is because in many ways, philosophy is a done subject. With most of the important and useful core work, including a lot of early science, and epistemology, being done early on. But there is still a small and real need for that early work, especially in subjects like ethics, and epistemology, and still a need to keep the subject alive in reserve.

@Fernapple unverified quote over on the FFR page

The logic of Christopher Hitchens;

"Religion ends where philosophy begins, just as alchemy ends where chemistry begins, and astrology ends where astronomy begins."

Those last two being observational progenitors of physics ( statistical/quantum mechanics and cosmology ) whose language is math. if you wanted to make the genealogy analogy , then you need many more generations between philosophers and physicists. That is , between Kant/Hume and modern physics of Bohr/Heisenberg

@Bullgator Nice quote. But why would you need more generations to make a genealogy analogy, there are no generations between parent and child. Indeed my analogy if anything fails for exactly the oposite reason, that there is in fact overlap, and many scientists have been both.

Agree- I believe it belongs more to science
as a PRIMARY guidence for humanity then a moral or belief system.
Thanks

Perhaps she just wants us to get to know her.

@Fernapple
I doubt the veracity of this person's persona. Typical of scammers to post this way

@skeptic70 Certainly. But Others may be interested.

@skeptic70 Definitely. Look at the canned definitions in all of her posts. Looks like automated writing, pulling generalities from the Internet. And no follow-up to anyone's comments or questions.

It is my understanding that the original purpose of philosophy was the acquisition of knowledge by raising questions about the world and our place in it. Through various forms of specialisation and the gradual expansion of knowledge accompanied by improvements in technology the role of philosophy changed from merely asking questions about the world and took on the role of category assignment. Philosophy is not a science in the sense of the hard sciences or even "soft sciences" and may be best thought of as the application of rigorous logic in determining to which category a thing or process belongs. Scientists have their own system of naming and classifying known as scientific nomenclature.

However, there are famous philosophers of science and one name springs to mind, Karl Popper. See the following link. [undsci.berkeley.edu]

No but science is a philosophy.

Science is also a philosophy, but a philosophy raised to a higher level, with better rules and practices. Unfortunately the best rules and practices can not be used for all aplications, which still leaves some ground for traditional philosophy.