[Coyoteman]

For one thing, how does a philosopher know that he has come up with a correct answer? What test does a philosopher apply to determine his answer is correct, rather than just rhetoric?

The short answer: Logic and reason, the same "tests" that scientists use. Don't forget: the natural sciences are first-born of philosophy; the subdiscipline of epistemology is particularly strongly emphasized. (What do we know? How do we know it? How do we know we know it?)

Not correct. Science also uses evidence. It is very possible, even easy, to reach an erroneous conclusion using logic. Science takes this process to a higher level by introducing evidence into the equation whereby answers can be evaluated. (See Kettering's Law.) Philosophy seems to do its best in the absence of evidence.

The rest of your post is your usual effort to get the definition of science changed to include the metaphysical so you can claim scientific backing for your religious beliefs. Not interested. Try down the hall.

[hosepipe]

[ Science also uses evidence. It is very possible, even easy, to reach an erroneous conclusion using logic. ]

Evidence can be "spun" as surely as "logic" can be spun..
A few bones can be spun in a tale of fiction as surely as a meme of logic..
Tall tales of evolution "can happen" just as surely as religious tales of Gods miraclous events..

Scientific "purity" is a myth.. only believed by SciencBots..
Are you pure Dogman?... (shineing nails)...

[AndrewC]

Science also uses evidence.

How do you know what can be used as evidence without using logic at some point prior to obtaining whatever it is that you call evidence?

[betty boop]

Not correct. Science also uses evidence. It is very possible, even easy, to reach an erroneous conclusion using logic.

Yes Coyoteman. I understand that. Gödel's incompleteness principle and all that.

But another danger lurks: One could be using logic to argue from/for an assumption or presupposition which isn't itself "true." (I use that word in the workman's sense....) In which case, one is engaging in a pointless exercise....

Let me ask you a question: Doesn't the scientific method rely on logic to select and qualify its evidence in the first place? It seems internally inconsistent to argue that logic is to be disparaged, then to use logic to select the evidence you use to illustrate your point.

You wrote: "Philosophy seems to do its best in the absence of evidence." Good grief man, you have to be positively stone blind not to recognize how universally pervasive philosophy is at the very foundation of human thought, of all human knowledge disciplines, including your own. This evidence is literally everywhere....

Thanks so much for writing Coyoteman!