Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[CapnAwesome]

It has come up when discussing philosophical arguments that arguments don't mean anything if we are trying to draw conclusions from science (or the absense of scientific knowledge). I think I am correct in pointing out that that is a result of scientism. When I mention it, I often get a confused reaction, deflection, or derision. For those that enjoy an intelligent debate, it might be productive to discuss. 

Scientism, also known as metaphysical or philosophical naturalism, is a worldview that believes only science and the scientific method can judge the truth of something. Click here for more info.

So, which is it? Is philosophy dead as Stephen Hawking claims? 

Or is scientism too restrictive a theory of knowledge and we discover truth through other means? Philosophical arguments can inform us.

I don't think philosophy was ever designed to be a truth testing method, more it's there to explore new ideas that sometimes are the basis for later ideas that sometimes become tested scientifically. Atom theory started out in ancient philosophy, but it wasn't held to be true until we could test it scientifically. So science and philosophy are really for two different things. But yes, science is the only way that we know of currently to test whether or not something is true. Test being an extremely important word there. No other system has testing built into it.