The connection between science and philosophy has long been the subject of discussion by philosophers and scientists. Some believe that philosophy is pseudoscience, but most say with confidence that philosophy is the starting point for the emergence of all sciences.
In order to start developing thoughts, you need free time. Apparently, for this reason, philosophy arose long after the transition of man from life in a tribe to civilization. Only people who were free from the problems associated with earning their daily bread could seriously surrender to the generalization of the experience achieved in a particular field. If you look at it from the point of view of modern man, then philosophy and science are inseparable in the sense that it is scientific inventions that make human life so easy that there is time for the free flight of thought. Thus, there is no philosophy without science.
The opposite statement is also quite legitimate. Science is impossible without philosophy, since the latter is the key to the ability to analyze, highlight features and draw conclusions. It is impossible to make great discoveries from purely mechanical work. It is for this reason that only scientists who are very erudite in their field and able to think widely can achieve success by comprehending new and unknown areas.
Nevertheless, philosophy and science are different concepts, if only because the former requires deeper mental work. Science is a process that begins with the collection of a certain amount of data, its processing and systematization. Without a thought process capable of combining all the facts together, the experimental and mechanical work of science would be empty and useless.
On the other hand, the scientific component in philosophy is also on a big question. Philosophy is the ability to think and determine the essence of human existence, that is, this is rational thinking. At the same time, there is a true assertion that "science does not think." Thus, philosophy and science are connected only through the medium of thought and scientific facts, that is, through a scientist engaged in the study of a specific issue. A scientist can make another discovery only with a non-standard, “unreasonable” approach to the topic. It is this unreasonableness of science that is the engine and the impetus for new discoveries.
Science does not think rationally; reason fights for its foundations. In this regard, philosophy and science highlight their truths. Scientific truth is reliable knowledge confirmed by a concrete example, and philosophical truth is the result of the interaction of reason and morality. Its basis is an understanding of good and evil, which is in no way consistent with the sober mind of science.
Philosophy has given impetus to understanding the scientific validity of certain phenomena. As a result, mankind has already had to compare such concepts as philosophy and private sciences. For some time, science developed only in breadth, more and more new areas of research appeared, each of which required its own mental and financial investments. Today, European science is on a dead end. The appearance of numerous “sub-sciences” can lead to the fact that once there will be nothing and nowhere to expand. Philosophy and private sciences will be forced to start new relationships, since the first already comprehends the same facts, and the second seeks to expand its borders to the utmost.
Particular attention should be paid to the subtle connection between the nature that surrounds us and philosophy. Initially, they were united by mythology, deifying various natural phenomena that could not be explained. The philosophy of nature had strong foundations in natural philosophy, which already saw behind every natural phenomenon not divine providence, but natural science facts. However, natural philosophy was based on speculative conclusions, which resulted in a dead end in the relationship between society and natural knowledge. For each of these natural philosophical movements, there was its own fundamental principle - the progenitor of all living things.
Gradually, the philosophy of nature was faced with the evidence of Copernicus that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Earth has already ceased to be the center of the universe. This was confirmed by subsequent scientific discoveries, clearly showing the unusually vast expanses of the Universe, in which our planet was just an infinite grain of sand among many other cosmic objects.
Today, perhaps, more than ever, nature needs a moral philosophical approach. Indeed, often a reckless attitude to natural wealth is detrimental to the state of the entire planet.