Philosophy and science should not be confused. In philosophy something may be proven or demonstrated. As Edward Feser puts it (page 235), philosophical arguments
are more like (though of course not exactly like) the proofs of geometry than they are like the probabilistic hypotheses put forward in empirical science. One could, of course, try to show that they fail as proofs; but it is as proofs that they need to be evaluated, rather than as second-rate quasi-scientific hypotheses.
Feser claims that what he calls "scientism" is (page 235-6)
so widespread that many philosophers who are committed to it seem unaware of how deeply it has influenced their own understanding of many traditional philosophical problems. Hence, they reflexively interpret rival philosophical positions (like dualism) as if they were attempts to formulate scientific hypotheses, or, if it is understood that they are not intended to be "scientific," it is assumed that this must mean that they are somehow irrational or indefensible.
he explains why would they might do that: (page 236)
What such philosophers too often fail seriously to consider is the possibility that empirical science is simply not the only form of rational inquiry. Mathematics, of course, would be the paradigm of a form of inquiry that is both clearly rational and not plausibly empirical (as at least some philosophers otherwise committed to scientism would concede). For the dualist, metaphysics is another example, a form of inquiry that is every bit as rational as empirical science, but non-empirical.
Let's consider the question:
Is philosophy a science and can it prove facts like science?
Philosophy is not a science. It is closer to mathematics in the sense that it provides proofs rather than probabilistic hypotheses. However, as an inquiry it is, like science, rational and defensible.
Feser, E. Philosophy of Mind: A Beginner's Guide. (2013) Oneworld.