Correction taken home. Thank you.
Science as a subfield of philosophy has never really occured to me, because when I think of 'science' I think of a process of learning about the world through observation, testing, the scientific method, etc. I think about confirmable results, repeatable tests, and verifiable information. I think about new knowledge that has practical application or is capable of further prediction.
When I consider 'philosophy', what I usually think of is a process that attempts to explain things without actually testing much of anything, using only observations and varying degrees of formal and informal logic. I think about abstract concepts, unverifiable ideas, and a general lack of practical application (excepting, of course, moral or social advancement).
However, I do stand corrected.
Nevertheless, in general, when one is presented with philosophy (especially on fora such as these), one is usually presented with a near-theology type of philosophy, like acosmism, or idealism, etc. In general, these appear to be based, in some part, on concepts that, eventually, become disproven by science or otherwise invalidated (like, the world is composed of fire, or water, etc.), or else are based on unfalsifiable concepts entirely (like, nothing really exists at all). A lot of this type of philosophy has fallen to the wayside with the further increase in scientific knowledge over the years, and as such, I tend to see it as being much like religion - seeking to fill gaps that eventually won't exist anyway.
Well, it's my biased perception, I suppose. Thanks for the correction.
