Philosophy is dead, or has been replaced by science

I think I can address each of these points in turn and show that Philosophy is not currently the best way to approach them. My opponent says we need moral philosophy to give life meaning and direct how we ought to live (before conceding that philosophy has failed to finally make these determinations for us). He goes on to insist that an ethic based in science is doomed to fail. Is this true? Do philosophers themselves even agree with my opponent on this point? Anscombe says we are not qualified to give moral edicts until we have a better understanding human psychology(1) and I consider uncontroversial to assert that it is modern science, and not philosophy, that is progressing and making real, useful discoveries in the field. Moral philosophy begins with a basic assumption about what is good, and from that proposition makes logical inferences about how actors ought to behave. Utilitarians promote pleasure or happiness, social contract theory would have use avoid a state of nature, Kantian ethics prohibits acting on maxims that are not universalisable, etc. These assumptions may be rationally justified by philosophy, but they are not _discovered_ in this way. Philosophy does not have the monopoly on making basic assumptions about what is good. Once we choose a particular foundational principle, however, it is in the realm of science to discover what conduct--in the real, physical world--is best for achieving these desired ends. For example, a philosopher may tell us that the reduction of suffering is the primary ethic by which we must all live but it is only through experimentation that we can determine exactly what is most successful at reducing harm. Sam Harris proposes just this (using human flourishing as the foundational standard) (2). My opponent also invokes Zeno's paradoxes, indicating that science is powerless to grapple with the idea of infinite divisibility, I assume. We can thank Aristotle (who is also dead, by the way) for already dealing with these problems for us (3), but lets assume he hadn't. I think it would be elementary to devise a scientific experiment to test, for example, who would in a race between Achilles and a tortoise (4). Science (particularly physics) _does_ work on problems like this despite what my opponent says. Quantum physics (which I am certainly not qualified to discuss in any detail) works on precisely these kind of problems. The incompleteness of Science does not, as far as I can tell, cause us to rely on philosophy to answer questions. If anything, the incompleteness of science requires us to perform more science, work on the completion of the project as this is the only way to either confirm or deny our philosophical reckonings to a satisfactory degree. My opponent contends that there are questions that science cannot answer and those are the questions we require philosophy but he fails to cite any questions which science cannot explain but philosophy has made indubitable conclusions about. If there are any such questions, I can't think of them. Con and I agree that logic is crucial to making determinations about the world, and Con says philosophy is peak of the study of logic. To this point, I would only recommend that my opponent do a quick google search of the term "mathematics." Finally, Con claims that Science is helpless to provide explanations of some, unidentified epistemological concepts. He goes on to accuse science of being unable to employ logic to contend with "objective arguments." These claims are specious at best. Regarding the mysterious epistemological concepts that science cannot explain, I think what my opponent ought to have said is that science can not _yet_ explain them. To that point I will say only this: philosophy has had its turn for a couple thousand years or so to explain these phenomenon, perhaps it is time to give Science a fair crack at it. To the point that science is not objective, this accusation is just false. The entire point of science (done well) is to remove subjectivity and bias and be as objective as possible. This is just the thing that makes science so great. It is clear that for any problem philosophy might tackle, science will ultimately make the final judgment. How does philosophy even work? You have premises that direct toward a conclusion. If the argument is valid--that is if they necessitate the conclusion--and the premises are true, then the conclusion of the philosophical enquiry are certain. However, how do you determine whether or not the premises of any argument are true (excepting, of course, semantical arguments and tautological truisms)? You test them, obviously. What is the current best method to conduct such a test? The scientific method, clearly. (1) G. E. M. Anscombe, "Modern Moral Philosophy." (2) Sam Harris, "The Moral Landscape." (3) Aristotle, "Physics" 6.2 233a (4) Ibid, 6.9 239b