>>14132473Other than scientist, most intellectual people in history (including many of the aforementioned) were philosophers. It may seem that science provides the answer for something, but it neither does nor intends to do so. It takes as given many things in order to try to obtain useful results, and predict the future, and understand phenomena.
Science is not a sufficient way to interpret the world and provide an answer to the though questions, that's how philosophy fits in. What seems like "answers" in science is not so much, but instead natural philosophy running by science hand, and rather discarding possibilities instead of providing an answer as such. Which is as far as reason can take us. To become sure that we know nothing. And can only assert that other people doesn't know either.
But once again that epistemological proceedment has its complications, as it holds to premises unstated that could pretty well be wrong and are at the bare minimum unproved.
Be, for instance: reason is the only way through which truth can be discovered.
The only way you can prove this is a perfect circle in which you have to admit your conclussion that because reason is the only thing we can be certain about, reason is.
What then? We can pick either to be solipsists and wonder why there aren't more like us and thinking that we are as lost as we were at the outset of, actually, this very instant because everything else is questionable. But you'd be lying to yourself. Because you will form beliefs either way, be it to go in favor of that solipsism, or against as you and I do.
People seem to have a negative perspective on the formulation of beliefs, and "unproved" conclussions, meanwhile allowing themselves to live up to what can pretty well be an elephant first rem cycle, and calling science "truth", and living up to exactly the same "mistake" of making an assumption that is, to start with, unfounded.
