How is the truth of the philosopher different from the truth of scientist?

Science draws a conclusion by measurement and observation of a specific physical phenomenon occuring under specific conditions. Scientific truth builds on established knowledge

Philosophy operates by logic or abstraction and debate on conceptual issues. Philosophical truth is established on opinion and probability, and is subject to revision and development to reflect changes occuring in a broad field of influences as our understanding increases

Whereas scientific truth may be disproved and operates on a single perspective, philosophical truth is subject to a range of perspectives and views

Rather than a schism the two are complimentary

The philosopher's truth has no consequences when found to be incorrect.

i think that the western philosophy became the science of psychology, since it would seem logical to prove your thought is true in reality.

while religion is philosophy and beliefs, psychology is what is provable about the person, that a subconscious exists, that a relationship of mind and body exists, that cause and effect exists, and many more.

psychology shows answers to many of philosophy's questions. it also refutes many of the philosophical answers to our life.

however, psychology does not deny philosophy exists. as a medicine, psychology does no harm.

Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/09/philosophy-...

Philosophy Begins Where Physics Ends, and Vice Versa

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-w...

Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?

Philosopher Julian Baggini fears that, as we learn more and more about the universe, scientists are becoming increasingly determined to stamp their mark on other disciplines. Here, he challenges theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss over 'mission creep' among his peers

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/09/sc...

Difference Between Science and Philosophy

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/car...

http://idv.sinica.edu.tw/tyuan/evernote/difference...

Philosophy does not "use speculation" to reach conclusions. It begins with speculation (as does science) but then undertakes to determine, by reason, experience, or (all too rarely) emotional awareness, what the truth really is about things.

They are not discrete. Various philosophies (Aristotle comes to mind) laid the groundwork for modern science. Modern philosophers can work inside the confines of science, theorize about the nature of science, or discuss ideas or issues beyond the reach of science - yet. But most philosophies do not need to contradict science, so finding differences is like finding the difference between the taste of an apple and the color or a lemon.

Science does not deal with truth, and neither does it pursue truth as its objective. The chief objective of science is to gather certain knowledge through the empirical study of facts, that certain knowledge when coherently accumulated, acts like a foundation to a building, i.e. to form the basis for technological advancement and innovation. The scope of scientific experimentation remains strictly contained within the boundaries of the known, to only what can be experimented upon and practically learnt.

But just as science has its boundaries, and its domain, the physical universe due to its sheer complexity and expanse, has virtually none, science, therefore, has such regions of obscurity within its sight or all sides that they are termed as twilight zones, the regions out of grasp but not out of reach. This is where science has no practical application, this is where the theoretical aspect of science comes into the equation, and scientists come very close to becoming philosophers. But this is where they stand faced towards regions of certainty, and their head turned against the very theories they propound, as they say, first we put forward a theory and then we set down to proving it wrong. Philosophers do the opposite, and hence the difference between the scientific and the philosophical truth, a difference of approach.

Philosophy deals with truth just as much it deals with uncertainty and doubt. The fact is what is philosophical could be anything. One thing philosophy does not deal with is the facts, and the certain knowledge, because there is no point being philosophical about a nuclear reaction or about the matter of enhancing the efficiency of a motor engine or that of a human organisation. Philosophy aims to find the truth behind everything but quite ironically it deals with none, whatever it finds it hands that over to science. It is like an army that always remains at the frontier to take new territories, that once taken, are handed over to the civil administration for development.

Science may not deal with truth, but what it finds and gathers, or formulates as a body of certain knowledge, the description of that is called the truth, but never just truth. Philosophy has nothing to do with the truth, but it has everything to do with that unattainable reality of the human mind that it has eternal yearning and fascination for truth, for justice, for peace and beauty, all various aspects of one truth, the ultimate objective of man.

Philosophy remains indebted to science for its all-important tool of logical reasoning. This is where philosophy comes very close to becoming the science in itself. Without this philosophy would have become obsolete long time ago, not having been able to play a leading role in the development of human thought. The philosophers of the past beyond the renaissance, beyond the age of reason, were mostly polymaths, the masters of all disciplines, mathematicians as well as numerologists, astrologists as well as astronomers, physicians as well as healers, chemists as well as alchemists.