The link below is for a debate between philosopher Julian Baggini and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss.http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/09/science-philosophy-debate-julian-baggini-lawrence-krauss
Some quotes I find interesting.
All bolding in quotes is my bolding.
I do wonder whether science hasn't suffered from a little mission creep of late.
The role of science as I see it is to explain (as best as possible) how nature works. And by 'nature' I mean everything that is conceivable AND that which is not.
Philosophy can ONLY cover that which is conceivable.
In the 'Treatise of Human Nature' Hume spoke on the indivisibility of space and time. Planck explored some of the same topics and even though they came to similar conclusions I find the science explanation more appealing.
But there are some issues of human existence that just aren't scientific. I cannot see how mere facts could ever settle the issue of what is morally right or wrong, for example.
Yes but what are 'morals'. Science works with what is definable and then a testing methodology which should be largely independent of individual human bias.
Take homosexuality, for example. Iron age scriptures might argue that homosexuality is "wrong", but scientific discoveries about the frequency of homosexual behaviour in a variety of species tell us that it is completely natural in a rather fixed fraction of populations and that it has no apparent negative evolutionary impacts. This surely tells us that it is biologically based, not harmful and not innately "wrong".
Again what are 'morals'. What are the priorities? Should an individual do firstly what is best for himself then his family, his town , his country, his religion, humanity, all living creatures, the universe, etc. Or is there some other order for these.
It is not that Science has NO answers to these questions it is just that Science has a different way, compared to philosophy or religion, of explaining the conclusions.
I admit I am pleased that you agree that "why is there something rather than nothing" is a question best addressed by scientists. But I claim more generally that the only meaningful "why" questions are really "how" questions. Do you agree?
Philosophy uses human language to observe, define, describe, analyse and resolve events.
Science can use technology to 'observe' nature and then use logic to explain what is seen. A model is then produced with which a theory can be tested.
Philosophy produces no predictions which can be tested independently.
Science can answer the question "Why do we have morals?" by showing HOW evolution selected individuals with our values (do not kill people like us etc..) which meant the group survived long enough to breed.
I don't know how philosophy answers that question.
Also how does philosophy explain Quantum Mechanics?