and philosophy doesn't do that?

you are aware that philosophy shares the same principles as science.....testing theories, providing justifications, ensuring a theory is both sound and valid......science does the exact same thing, but limits itself to arbitrary systems of measurement.....like mathematics........even then, analytical philosophy itself may use an arbitrary system of measurement (symbolic logic).....

but, you're right, philosophy is more akin to "accepting" ideas more-so than science....

for example:

IF all men are mortal, THEN all mortals are men:

although this is a sound argument, it isn't valid.....for other creatures are mortal as well....

IF all men exist, and existence is forever, THEN all men are forever

this is a valid argument, but obviously, it isn't very sound.....

IF all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, THEN Socrates is mortal

this is both sound and valid....


science mainly concerns itself with the latter....if a theory falls into the prior, science usually abondons it.....whereas philosophy will concern itself with it and think about it, but for the most part philosophy wouldn't say that such "ideas" are fully justified

but, science too finds itself amidst "ideas".....for example, Gamma-Ray Bursts.......for decades science had a problem pertaining to the "idea" behind Gamma-Rays because it conflicted with Einstein's logic of E=MC^2.......an object that blows up in another galaxy, sending out rays, which come into our galaxy? this was a grave problem for Einstein's theory....but science had to answer it, and they did, with the theory that Gamma-Rays don't go in every direction like they thought, but instead do a jet-stream effect (like a black hole does).....

but the point is, both science and philosophy are tools used to test ideas to see if they are BOTH sound and valid..........but philosophy will, at times, concern itself with one or the other, whereas science merely seeks both validity and soundness......