Philosophy has a handicap: It could not start as a greenfield strategy.

Instead philosophy inherited its tasks from religious speculation. It took a while until philosophy had designed its tools ready for work, i.e. provided useful concepts and clear rules of logic. But there was never a time to test the tools by simple examples and to validate their success. Each task presented by the principal, the religion, had to be served in real time. The situation in medieval Europe was phrased “philosophia ancilla theologiae” (= philosophy is the handmaiden of theology)

On the other hand, science was free from any religious paternalism. Often it stepped forward even against the religious canon. Hence science could focus to problems with the view of success, and it could synchronously develop the method how to deciffer best the book of nature.

In addition there is a big difference between the strategy of both disciplines: Science focus on a problem which can be clearly stated. Science designs a solution and checks whether the solution solves the poblem. First the question, then the answer.

But in philosophy explicitely stated and contoured problems are rare. Sometimes it seems that philosophers first present their answer, and would only on request elaborate a question which could meet the answer. On this basis a sincere test is not possible.

Anyhow, like the prompt for simpleness due to “the famous guy” from science, also philosophy has its own call to avoid unnecessary complexity and additional involved terminology. It is named “Occam’s razor”.

Philosophy has a handicap: It could not start as a greenfield strategy.

Instead philosophy inherited its tasks from religious speculation. It took a while until philosophy had designed its tools ready for work, i.e. provided useful concepts and clear rules of logic. But there was never a time to test the tools by simple examples and to validate their success. Each task presented by the principal, the religion, had to be served in real time. The situation in medieval Europe was phrased “philosophia ancilla theologiae” (= philosophy is the handmaiden of theology)

On the other hand, science was free from any religious paternalism. Often it stepped forward even against the religious canon. Hence science could focus on problems with a view of success, and it could synchronously develop the method how to deciffer best the book of nature.

In addition there is a big difference between the strategy of both disciplines: Science focus on a problem which can be clearly stated. Science designs a solution and checks whether the solution solves the poblem. First the question, then the answer.

But in philosophy explicitely stated and contoured problems are rare. Sometimes it seems that philosophers first present their answer, and would only on request elaborate a question which could meet the answer. On this basis a sincere test is not possible.

Anyhow, like the prompt for simpleness due to “the famous guy” from science, also philosophy has its own call to avoid unnecessary complexity and additional involved terminology: It is named “Occam’s razor”.

Philosophy has a handicap: It could not start as a greenfield strategy.

Instead philosophy inherited its tasks from religious speculation. It took a while until philosophy had designed its tools ready for work, i.e. provided useful concepts and clear rules of logic. But there was never a time to test the tools by simple examples and to validate their success. Each task presented by the principal, the religion, had to be served in real time. The situation in medieval Europe was phrased “philosophia ancilla theologiae” (= philosophy is the handmaiden of theology)

On the other hand, science was free from any religious paternalism. Often it stepped forward even against the religious canon. Hence science could focus to problems with the view of success, and it could synchronously develop the method how to deciffer best the book of nature.

In addition there is a big difference between the strategy of both disciplines: Science focus on a problem which can be clearly stated. Science designs a solution and checks whether the solution solves the poblem. Fist the question, then the answer.

But in philosophy explicitely stated and contoured problems are rare. Sometimes it seems that philosophers present their answer, and only on request elaborate a question which could meet the answer. On this basis a sincere test is not possible.

Anyhow, like the prompt for simpleness due “the famous guy” from science, also philosophy has its own call to avoid unnecessary complexity and additional terminology. It is named “Occam’s razor”.

Philosophy has a handicap: It could not start as a greenfield strategy.

Instead philosophy inherited its tasks from religious speculation. It took a while until philosophy had designed its tools ready for work, i.e. provided useful concepts and clear rules of logic. But there was never a time to test the tools by simple examples and to validate their success. Each task presented by the principal, the religion, had to be served in real time. The situation in medieval Europe was phrased “philosophia ancilla theologiae” (= philosophy is the handmaiden of theology)

On the other hand, science was free from any religious paternalism. Often it stepped forward even against the religious canon. Hence science could focus to problems with the view of success, and it could synchronously develop the method how to deciffer best the book of nature.

In addition there is a big difference between the strategy of both disciplines: Science focus on a problem which can be clearly stated. Science designs a solution and checks whether the solution solves the poblem. First the question, then the answer.

But in philosophy explicitely stated and contoured problems are rare. Sometimes it seems that philosophers first present their answer, and would only on request elaborate a question which could meet the answer. On this basis a sincere test is not possible.

Anyhow, like the prompt for simpleness due to “the famous guy” from science, also philosophy has its own call to avoid unnecessary complexity and additional involved terminology. It is named “Occam’s razor”.