> I can see that the scientific method works well in producing knowledge. In domains where it is suitable/adequate (be mindful of ambiguous, potentially misinf

> I can see that the scientific method works well in producing knowledge. In domains where it is suitable/adequate (be mindful of ambiguous, potentially misinformative language when engaged in study and communication, lest other humans pick up the bad habit and humanity becomes confused). >Because we can do something with it. Like fly to the moon, cure diseases, build nuclear weapons. Philosophy can be used to have interesting conversations, at least. >Philosophy however claims usually to also find knowledge. There are several methods, but none of them seems to have any evidence of working in any other circumstances than everyday heuristics. Things are not always what they seem, because seems itself is a heuristic. >On the contrary, the lack of convergence in opinion seems to indicate that they do not work well. It could also suggest that the entirety of reality isn't deterministic like the physical realm (which is mostly only what science studies, and most people have the impression that science studies everything (they even have a Theory of "Everything"!)). >I agree that philosophy is nice to have, a playground for ideas, a collection of possibilities of systems of concepts. But I fail to see what points to it being a source of knowledge. I would say that via philosophy, one could develop a proposition that science uses the planet as its playground. For example: without science, could we have achieved this level of global warming? >It's one thing to state "These systems are possible", and another to state "this system is the real one", specifically in ethics. I've encountered many thousands of people who claim with extreme certainty that science is essentially or even literally the only game in town when it comes to the acquisition of knowledge.