Would you use philosophy to debate science, or science to debate philosophy?

Science cannot exist without philosophy. Philosophy can exist without science.

The example of your mother is not entirely apt. Science was not just born from philosophy, it requires philosophical processes continually to run: logic, reasoning, certain assumptions about the universe. If you abandon (or dispute the validity) of these things, you cannot ever perform science and all scientific findings of the past are called into question.

The data from a science experiment doesn't interpret itself. It always has to be interpreted through some theoretical framework that will of necessity have at least some implicit philosophical positions about how the universe exists.

So one needs philosophy to debate the validity of one's science.

Science is the leading source of knowledge in our times. Yet, humanities majors in college are often innocent of its methods and content, and scientists are often unaware of how their facts are related to their theories, the nature of scientific truth and the question of whether they are studying the real world or an artifact of their practice. Philosophy of science is a subfield of Philosophy that can be used to answer such issues and questions.

PingPong, I do not believe that if i did not exist, my mother also would not exist.DR.Y, i do believe that it the scientific world that if there is no big bang (which is related to science) there would be no philosophy, as we know it. so it would seem appropriate for philosophy to debate science.

Dr Y..is right on!!..However!..they both come out of "mind" and mind is fragmented. its also "made up"...what im saying is..that the source cannot understand itself..it can observe but not really comprehend . It is always limited.

Use logic to debate both.