It begs the question of what philosophy is. If it is "love of wisdom", as the Ancient Greeks suggested, then it seeks to know all things. That is, it seeks knowledge of what is, not of what is most likely, which is the domain of modern science.
I normally wouldn’t be pedantic about this but because this is a discussion about philosophy I have to point out that it doesn’t “beg the question”. “Begging the question” is an informal logical fallacy where an argument’s premises assume that its conclusion is true so it ends up being circular. I think you mean it “raises the question”.
The problem is 'begs the question' is not an intuitive phrase to describe the formal definition, so we're going to be stuck with this correction forever.
At this point I feel it has only survived as a form of shibboleth.
>The problem is 'begs the question' is not an intuitive phrase to describe the formal definition
it does if you look at the etymology; beg comes begging off i.e. asking for exemption from something. it's archaic at this point of course but still fairly intelligible in that use; "he begged off doing his chores".
It was clear from the context that "begs the question" here essentially means "raises the question," as is often the case. If there is no confusion, there should be no need for clarification.
"it seeks knowledge of what is, not of what is most likely, which is the domain of modern science"
Physics, arguably the bedrock and most "certain" of the sciences, has long struggled with what the phenomena it studies actually are, leading to a "shut up and calculate" attitude popularized by Feynman, where physicists just throw their hands up and focus on the mathematics and abstractions rather than engaging with the ultimate what and why questions, which they leave (rightly) to philosophy.
The boundary questions (for example, what is physics, what is chemistry, what are their proper objects of study, and so on) are also philosophical questions, and not anything any amount of empirical study, hypothesizing, predicting, or model-making can solve.
Questions about what humanity as a whole, any subgroup of humans, or any individual one of us should do are also not amenable to scientific inquiry. Neither are questions of what is right and wrong. Science can only ever be descriptive, not prescriptive.
Postmodernist's would disagree with you heavily that the two domains intersect.
Philosophy goal is uncover truth where science is restricted mostly to the realm of facts and empirical truths.
An example would be the question of the meaning of life, science has little ability to answer this question other that to claim it doesn't actually exist or it's just a complex expression of atoms working together where with philosophy there are countless ways to answer this age old question.
