Philosophy and science compared

The book The Neural Basis of Free Will by Michael Tse gives an interesting comparison of philosophy and science in the Introduction.

Why has philosophy been unable to make substantial progress in solving the mind-body problem? The root of philosophy’s impasse is that its main tools – logical argumentation, “thought experiments,” “intuition pumps,” and persuasion – are inadequate to the task. By themselves, these tools are incapable of settling basic debates between scholars with conflicting views rooted in incompatible starting assumptions. Logic can derive conclusions for axioms, but it cannot derive axioms, or, for that matter, the assumptions, biases, hunches, or intuitions that seem to underlie so much philosophical argumentation. With no objective way to settle a conflict, it is rare to find a philosopher who has written, “I was wrong and my rivals were right.” Without an objective arbiter of truth such as that imposed by falsifiability, why would a philosopher ever concede, especially when doing so might diminish career standing? A field cannot move forward to the next stage of a problem, and acknowledge that what was once a problem has now been solved, unless those on the wrong side of the debate are forced to concede they were wrong. Science, in contrast, has nature to falsify theories and models, and the scientific method of experimentation and model-correction/abandonment that forces scientists to stand on the shoulders of giants. Whether or not scientists concede they were wrong does not matter in the long run. Nature forces their concessions. Scientists who dogmatically maintain a position despite concrete evidence to the contrary are left behind. Whereas philosophers receive acclaim for occupying a position and defending it persuasively, scientists receive acclaim for making new discoveries that push the field to modify existing models of reality. Science makes astonishing progress year after year, whereas philosophy makes slow progress over centuries – at least concerning mental causation, free will and the mind-body problem – because debates can be objectively settled in science but cannot be objectively settled in philosophy.

One could quibble with some of this, but I believe it is largely accurate. Some might take this to discredit philosophy, but such a critic has to rely on some philosophy when science has no good answer to some questions.