Philosophers can be scientists and scientists can be philosophers. The question then is: How/why philosophers and scientists differ? The fact they have a different name implies they differ, but how/why?

Perhaps two words for discussion: "Thinking" and "Testing"

@ Marcel M. Lambrechts, thanks for leading and initiating the discussion. You are right to argue, How/why philosophers and scientists differ. I agree with you and this is exactly the context of this thread/question.

Dear Dr. Ahed,

Welcome and thanks for joining. Well said, start as philosopher and end as scientist. Does this imply to all philosophers and scientists?

The question should be divided to separate era in historical viewpoint, because the answers will be different.

For Contemporary period of human beings, Unfortunately the role of philosophers has been faded through recent decades, the mainreason is explosive scientific informations which is a direct consequence of "information explosion".

However around mediaeval centuries, The boundary between a scientist and philosopher was not clarified because there was not a distinction between science and philosophy mainly due to the limited area of science borders, and lack of detailed explanation for natural phenomena.

@ Manouchehr Amiri,

Thanks for contributing. Excellent remarks, For Contemporary period of human beings, Unfortunately the role of philosophers has been faded through recent decades, the main reason is explosive scientific information which is a direct consequence of "information explosion". I appreciate your arguments.

Respected Prof. Kamal,

Welcome. Thanks for very intelligent and smart answer. I think, the way scientists work is different from philosophers.

Dear Dr. Ahed,

Thanks for the prompt reply. You made it clear.

Dear repected @Asmat, for me as a Mathematician, I have the following contribution:

Mathematics is built on logic and combination of logical statements, and in proving any Mathematical statement, only this logic can be used.

The original Greek meaning of philosophy is "love of wisdom". Before the 19th century in most of Europe, all fields (other than theology, law, and medicine) were termed as philosophy. Therefore, the old classification has put sciences under the umbrella of philosophy.

Later on, sciences were considered to denote the knowledge based upon observation, experiments or testing, and conclusion. The scientific approach gave tangible "amazing" products which led some to "despise" philosophy as the saying "Be physicist but beware of metaphysics" testifies. But when one studies a certain science, the final degree obtained is PhD or doctor of philosophy in that science which signifies the high level of thinking, approaching, reasoning, horizons broadening, and rational application in that specialization. In simple wording: you start as a scientist and end up as a philosopher in your science.  

Very concise & profound. Thanks Dear Prof. Kamal.

When one chooses to handle the lofty tools and internalize the immutable precepts of science (unavoidably standing on the shoulders of mountainous, brilliiant giants as one does so), I think after a short period that one has no choice but to grow the feathers of philosophy. Otherwise, it is a very long way down without wings~!

"The difference between science and philosophy is that the scientist learns more and more about less and less until she knows everything about nothing, whereas a philosopher learns less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything" Dorion Sagan

I personally think that science and philosophy Must not be separated because they need each other, for example artificial intelligence is heavly dependent on stuff like: Logic, methods of reasoning, mind as physical system, foundations of learning, language and rationality, which all came from philosophy.

The question is "Can philosophy develop by itself, without the support of science?" and "Can science "work" without philosophy?".

Dr. Matar has said it all. I cannot add to his statement because I fully agree with him.

Dear all contributors,

In my views, a true scientist is a dedicated researcher with highly positive attitude towards his field of research or allied fields so scientist could be a philosopher but a philosopher may not be a scientist because his area of interest in philosophy may not have true scientific research interest. So a Philosopher may or may not be a scientist but a scientist could always become a philosopher after thorough experience.

I totally agree with Dr Nizar matar's statement..

Lately, every scientific field has develop its own philosophy. Phylosophy of pysics, philosophy of biology, etc. After all the one thing which remained to philosophy proper ia "metaphysics". Thus each scientist has its own philosophy. For each scientific field its philosophy concerns the general foundational issues of the field, whereas the field itself deals with specific results. Thus for each scientific field the boundaries between the field and its philosophy are rathe vague. 

I agree with Costas the lines between science and philosophy are fuzzy.

@Dr. Nizar Matar,

I agree with your statements. But I´m one of the exceptions. My degree is Dr. rer. nat. not PhD, so some changes in conscience seem to occur. During my studies we avoided officially to believe in philosophy, but all of us read the great philosophers secretly  and tried to understand. So today I´m convinced, there should be a close connection between "pure" science and philosophy.

Dear Pierangela/Nasser,

You gave the simplest answer to the initial question. Others added arguments to expain their position. Did Asmat asked for these arguments in the initial question? Probably...

I think Philosophers are fuzzy people (think with possibility, vague, ambiguity, misty, distorted, confused, not clear in thought), whearas Scientists are Crisp in nature (well-defined, explicit, focused, clear, distinct)!

The above statement does not mean the boundary among philosophers and scientists is crisp [0, 1].  Contrary, each of us are to some degree {0, 1}, i.e., anything between zero and one,  can be a philosopher too and vice versa.

According to me, Philosphy and Science should not be merged but there is strong bond between these. If we talk about Scientist, He/She is nothing without Philoshy so he/she is a Philospher as well. Same time if we talk about Philospher, it is not necessary that every Philospher think about Science. So for me every Scientist is a Philospher but It is not necessary that every Philospher is a scientist.    

i think there is no boundries both complete each other

A scientist may be a philosopher and may know foundation of science as a process of knowing or can work without knowing what the philosophy is. Whereas, philosphers cannot be scientists they can tell what constitute knowledge and how to know but cannot be involved in the scientific process of knowing.

In my opinion, the demarcation line between science and philosophy is fuzzy. They overlap each other. Every scientist is a philosopher and every philosopher is a scientist as well. They can neither be differentiated nor be merged.

I totally agree and endorse Dr. Naser's statements - we end up a philosopher of our science 

Science, in general, seeks to understand natural phenomena and more concerned on empirical evidences and testable hypotheses; however, philosophy is a school of thought that utilizes reasoning to uncover issues concerning metaphysics, logic, epistemology, language, ethics, aesthetics, and other disciplines. Throughout the history, science has gradually built knowledge upon what is already known, measuring phenomena and trying to uncover the rules governing them. Even in the modern world, each scientific field has its own unique first principles. Aristotle referred as the Father of Science used deduction for building up his view of the universe, believing that every phenomenon could be explained through reason, as long as the first principles are sound. Whilst Plato, Father of Philosophy and many other philosophers contributed to the very beginning of the scientific process. Ibn-Sina, the great scientist and polymath also known as Avicenna, built upon the scientific processes postulated by Aristotle, but was one of the first philosophers to bring the metaphysical issue of God into the picture. Ibn-al-Haytham, commonly regarded as the first scholar to define the modern scientific method, laid down the steps of the scientific process and attempted to unite the induction of predictions and generalizations with the deduction of experiments. Theoretical physicists like Einstein, Hawking and Feynman generated beautiful mathematical formulas and models to explain the unknown areas of quantum physics and cosmology understanding that actual experimental and empirical evidence potentially lead to the adjustment or abandonment of these theories, if proved incorrect. The modern scientific method is built upon the work of all of great philosophers. The interrelatedness of philosophy and science is evident beyond doubt despite distinction in the approach of the two. There’s absolutely no science free from philosophy because sciences depend on philosophy and vice versa. Precisely, "Science without Philosophy has no root and Philosophy without Science has no fruit."

In Science and philosophy there is NO Crisp boundary....... Fuzzy logic govern there relationships.

Sorry for being away due to some unavoidable situation. I see a variety of nice and rich contributions comprising of quite lovely opinions, philosophical and scientific contributions from all of you.

I think philosophers follow fuzzy rules whereas scientists adopt hard rules. The fuzzy rules are obtained through interviewing and questionnaires from experts whereas; the hard rules are usually based on common knowledge or common sense. This is one of the crisp boundaries between a philosopher and a scientist. Do you agree, please?

I also see some down voter has invaded us. Let us continue sharing please without bothering about this down voting though this act is not good at all.

A scientist always translates her/his research question into appropriate hypotheses and rules.

Hypothesis-----Rule----- Conditions/Variables

Does a philosopher also do the same?

Science believes in what it sees and try to explain, while philosophy is able to explain things that cannot be seen directly or visualized with the known patterns. In fact they depend on each other. The dependence of science on philosophy is greater IMHO.

A good blog can be seen here.

Another thread with a large number of responses can be seen here:

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/04/30/dorion-sagan-cosmic-apprentice/

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_and_Science_what_is_the_connection

Respected @ Nageswara Rao Posinasetti,

Well said, Science believes in what it sees and tries to explain, while philosophy is able to explain things that cannot be seen directly or visualized with the known patterns.  

Thanks for contributing with good links, as well.  

@ Francesca Cansani,

I love, what you said. Excellent remarks. Thanks for active and continuous contribution and feedback. I appreciate it.

My view is that it depends.  "Science" is really just one worldview and therefore a type of philosophy.  It is really just an Epistemology.  Even within “Science” there are the empirical and the constructivist positons with Kuhn’s work being an example.  So they cannot really be separated. 

Dear Franeccesca

I am really obliged to you for pointing out what I have said comes from Quran [Surat about Philosophers]. Thank you again. But, I would like to point out like other ways science is a specific way of knowing the truth of the nature or the world. In fact, the philosophy developed out of curiosity to know the self and its surroundings {what self observes, listen, feels, tastes, smells etc.]. Initially it was discussed in metaphysics and grdually change into philosophy of nature. Whatever experience one goes and states, to judge it philosophy laid down certain principles to distiguih truth from falsehood or opinion. It constituted epistemology or theory of knowledge. It was in this context that I pointed out that scientists can afford not to look back to the philosophical foundation on which a particular science is based and carry out his/her work without involving philosophy, though a scientist at the same time may be a philosopher. Philosophy is altogether different from science. It discusses how the truth can be established without reference to a particular science. Thus, the division of work or boundary between science is sharp. However, the common theme, i.e., truth is concern of the two.