Philosophy cannot controvert science. Science cannot controvert philosophy.
Philosophy covers ethics, aesthetics (which I can’t comment on, because I didn’t study it), ontology, logic…
Logic underpins formal logic, which underpins:
- all reasoning;
- maths – and thus all science, especially physics.
Philosophy has a reputation among the masses as an arts subject. It is not. It is a discipline, a training, in thinking. Reason. That is, thinking logically.
Just because everyday language uses ‘philosophical’ to mean ‘easygoing’ does not mean this intellectual practice is soft, fuzzy-edged, anything less than rigorous. The only obscurity involved is because philosophy explores realms so distant from the notions we use unthinkingly all the time.
Just because Aristotle lived a long time ago does not mean philosophy is like history, a question of facts and interpretations of facts (= opinions). It’s not a question of how we feel about this or that. When any statement (of right and wrong, or fact and myth) is made, philosophy dissects it, examines it, and seeks not only to pronounce ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ but to know why we can say so.
And that means it is an approach that doesn’t say, ‘We know,’ it says, ‘We don’t know.’ Philosophy is a pursuit of truth, making sure that every step on that path is on a stable stepping-stone. Defensible.
In this, philosophy and science are the same.