[BasedAnon]

>When a philosophy has enough proofs and credibility, it becomes a science

I completely disagree with this notion of science. To me science is the practice of analysing findings from controlled experimentation and then deriving predictive, reproducible and falsifiable hypotheses.

[saled]

Why do you think that collecting evidence from experiments leads to truth though? What about the process gives you certainty?

What evidence is important to making progress and what evidence is irrelevant?

What does progress in understanding an area look like? Why should we undertake it?

These are questions of philosophy, no experiments can answer them.

[BasedAnon]

>Why do you think that collecting evidence from experiments leads to truth though?

I don't, but I find that it produces results that are instrumental, and I assume that the past behaves analogously to the future, and similar situations behave similarly because this has generally been true in my experience.

>Why should we undertake it?

I'm religious, so certain science is useful to me in accomplishing my goal of attaining heaven.

>These are questions of philosophy, no experiments can answer them.

I agree.