Philosophical explanation > scientific explanation 100% of the time.
ORLY? Care to take a punt at Dualism?
Philosophers, like theists, assume dualism to be a fact, then they spend forty years gazing at their navels and throwing word-salad around in the company of those eager to hear anything which even suggests that there might be a basis for dualism because, you know, souls-n'-shit.
Trouble is, there never has been a good reason to believe in dualism, other than wishful thinking and even then it throws up way more problems in the long run than it solves, which is conveniently ignored or, what's worse, used as 'evidence' of the Things-Which-Cannot-Evar-Be-'Splained!!!1!1!!!1!1
The idea that there exists things for which there can *never* be an explanation, is the founding platform by which philosophers and theists/creationists love to get together and pound out their we're-in-agreement love for each other because, hey, you can't prove love exists but we *know* it does, right?RIGHT? How do you explain the beauty of a sunrise? HMM? You can't explain that! Ergo. . .dualism. Or something equally vapid and 'woo'.
:epicrolleyes:
Dubious reply.
First, with regards to dualism, we already have a logical tautology to reconcile it. The sameness-in-difference principle states that two or more relational entities must reduce to a common medium. From that single tautology, we prove that dualism necessarily stems from monism and only constitutes topological differences between real phenomena.
The problem with science is precisely that it assumes dualism through its assumption that the Universe is Positivistic. This is why science works as it does, controlling for the role of the observer so that some isolated phenomena can be objectively described in relation to some other isolated phenomena.
However, Philosophy in general does not make this assumption as you otherwise suggest. The reason that classical physics and metaphysics have not yet been synthesized is primarily due to the fact that classical physics maintains assumptions that metaphysics does not.
Second, there are different types of explanations. Empirical explanations are one kind, philosophical explanations are another. Just because you don't have an empirical explanation for something doesn't mean there isn't a sound logical explanation.
Finally, to demonstrate just how necessary philosophy is, keep in mind that science is wholly incapable of exploring, verifying, or concluding upon its own assumptions. The assumption of a Positivistic Universe is fundamentally required for scientific exploration, and yet 1) there is not a shred of evidence that such a Universe exists, and 2) the assumption itself is empirically unfalsifiable.
But if the assumption is empirically unfalsifiable (i.e. It's unscientific), why does science permit its use? The answer is simple: science yields to Philosophy to justify the Positivistic Universe assumption by deferring to the rules and limitations of sound inference via inductive reasoning.
Again, philosophical explanations > empirical explanations 100% of the time.
This is entirely why the scientific method doesn't work when proving for God. The universe includes everything. But, because of Who God is, the universe might not include God. Or God might be both within and without the universe. Or God might fill the universe as well as being within and without.
There is no other meaning for "the universe" than "everything." So, science can't work with God the same as it works with the universe.
