Right okay so if,

Physics, psychology, linguistics, mathematics, logic, chemistry, biology — Banno

are all a part of philosophy is there anything which inst?

Insults? No usually not, it's best to just start throwing things.

are you being sarcastic? Because that in no way follows.

From that Wikipedia article section 9.1
"The Existence Question: is there progress in philosophy?"
"The Comparison Question: is there as much progress in philosophy as in science?"

So my question is: what makes Tom's justification method to be superior to Sam's justification method? — Curious Layman

Isn't it simply the fact that a thermometer is a more reliable and objective gauge of temperature, then a look at what others are wearing from the window. Isn't this obvious?

Didn't Xeno's Paradox get solved? — RogueAI

Yes, Xeno's paradox has been solved for two distinct interpretations.

I'm not sure about that. It's possible that mathematical knowledge, for instance, doesn't need to be justified by induction. The same seems also to apply to the truths of logic. — Amalac

Yes, that's why I stated for all practical examples.

Okay so, I don't take science to be a part of philosophy. I don't much care if a good deal of philosophising was done on what are presently scientific questions, and I don't care that many a philosopher was also a scientist.

Philosophy is generally theoretical, and I think its main branches are metaphysics, logic, epistemology, axiology and aesthetics. Problems which exist within these domains can justly (as far as I am concerned) be considered philosophical. Problems which are of the form 'How does 'x' occur' and 'Why does 'x' occur' where x is any natural phenomena are scientific. If you don't agree with this schema that's okay, but can you answer the original question with the assumption that it's correct.

You need to read more. — Banno

Yes, defiantly.

Aristotle, perhaps. — Banno

Yes, probably.

Sure. But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning — bongo fury

I see, so you mean to say that a good inductive argument consists of linking a Wikipedia page.
Jokes, though I will read that page probably helpful at some level.

Philosophy generally isn't thought of as being the same as science, though science definitely has its origins within philosophy. I don't know that any of the questions concerning the natural world (the domain of science) were ever philosophical in nature. I'm also very suspicious of the claim that the essence of a problem changes once a solution is found.

Also, please make no mention of deductive arguments since these can only be made in theory with each premise of a deductive argument ultimately being justified through induction for all practical examples.