This question already has an answer here:

Is the progress from philosophy to science (or scientific thought/practice) reasonable?

Or in other words,

is it reasonable to see science as a subset of philosophy that has departed from philosophy.

Or that, in order to feel useful, one attempts to depart from philosophy to science. Because mere philosophy is ancient and not practical at all.

marked as duplicate by Conifold, Community Oct 23 '17 at 18:25

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • Philosophy not practical!? You're going to have to back that claim up. I'm not sure how one can do science or philosophy without doing both, so I'd be happy with 'Natural Philosophy'. But the distinction is useful and meaningful given the specialist nature of the natural sciences.and the way its practioners tend to ignore philosophy when theorising from the data. – PeterJ Oct 24 '17 at 11:59
  • @PeterJ I have gone through quite a bit of philosophy, because in high school it was one of my favorite subjects and left a long lasting interest towards "philosophizing". However, as I've grown older as well as studied science proper, I've come to hold the view that other branches of philosophy than the philosophy of science are "weak" in the sense that they can be associated easily with opinions. Even if they try to claim some authority, then I think they're still always tied to subjectivity (specifically, someone has to form the premises). – mavavilj Oct 24 '17 at 13:15
  • @PeterJ Phil. to me therefore is practical only insofar it can produce "utility" for mankind. As a mere theoretical game or theorizing where one tries to hold onto some abstract views, it doesn't really help much. – mavavilj Oct 24 '17 at 13:16
  • @PeterJ Rather, I'm also a bit vary of it being possible to claim some philosophy as a bit "religious", because of it basing on hoccuspoccus, rather than being in accord with scientific methodologies (which are "harder" than mere a priori). Since philosophy, I see, tends to be a priorical and non-empirical, then the theory and methodology of other sciences can easily supersede "mere philosophy". That is, even when no-one calls it "philosophy", everyone does philosophy in some form. But its goals may vary and it's not left as only a priorical. Because the world is not abstract. – mavavilj Oct 24 '17 at 13:30
  • The pessimism of Western philosophy never ceases to amaze me. There seems to be a problem with distinguishing good from bad philosophy. The results of metaphysics cannot be 'superseded' by work in the sciences. The idea is a category-error. If our philosophy is not practical and scientifically-sound then this is not the fault of philosophy. – PeterJ Oct 25 '17 at 11:36