No it isn't.
1.\ta branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.\tsystematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.\tany of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.\tsystematized knowledge in general.
5.\tknowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.\ta particular branch of knowledge.
7.\tskill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
and [link|http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy|Philosophy]:
1.\tthe rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2.\tany of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3.\ta system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4.\tthe critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5.\ta system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6.\ta philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.
are (perhaps subtly) different things. Ultimately science comes down to evidence, predicative ability, and falsify-ability. Philosophy is about rationality and isn't tied to evidence or the physical world as strongly. IMO.
I think some of you folks are talking past each other. I think Ashton is saying that there are many things that science can't explain. I think Peter is saying that a purported scientific proposition that cannot present an explanation that is supported by evidence is not, in fact, a scientific proposition. "It's bollocks."
I think [link|http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/|Victor J. Stenger] (author of the original linked piece) is saying roughly the same thing as Peter.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
