[analog31]

Indeed, in the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas asks if theology is a science, and concludes that it is. He also gave lip service to logical rigor and falsifiability, in the latter case by encouraging the discipline of asking contrary questions and answering them. What he didn't do was appeal to empirical data, to any great extent.

I think the reasoning behind "doctor of philosophy" may be lost to history. All knowing Wikipedia suggests that it didn't happen at once. My take was that the requirements for a modern PhD were added long after the title was adopted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy

I suspect there was a time when a person could be well versed in multiple of what are now separated fields, and that you had to be a philosopher to make sense of science and math. Also, as science was flexing its own wings, claiming to be a philosopher might have been a way to gain an air of respectability, just like calling a physician "doctor" when the main impact of medicine was to kill rich people.

Disclosure: PhD, but ambivalent about titles.