How much do you like philosophy?

[MindForgedManacle]

Define them, explain them, make predictions based on your results...except politics...that's hopeless. When you can you will have accomplished something....until then its nothing.

...What? Talking about making predictions based on concepts alone is a complete non sequitur. If I'm talking about the concept of truth, asking for a prediction of my investigation into the concept makes no sense. An investigation into whether or not the logic is valid/sound is more applicable.

Then philosophy people don't do a good job of public education. Which I'm sure you're aware is a huge enterprise in science.

...Did you read what I said? Asking for definitions is completely legit, and someone actually capable of giving them should do so. I can do so for philosophy, and my philosophy professors have been more than willing to do so, so I have no idea what you're saying here.

And worse, I can show what you said to be very questionable. How often do we have to explain what a 'theory' or 'law' is in science? Or what evolution is? Big Bang? Origin of life? Granted, SOME of the public misunderstanding is because of creationist deception (or ignorance), but scientists and science-popularizers themselves are also partly to blame in some of their explanations, wherein they aren't clear, to the layman, what they mean by what they say.

That's both conceptually flawed and empirically false. Science surely has aspects of "hypothesizing and investigating", bit that's certainly not all of it. There are assumptions, postulations of unobservables to explain data and abstract theoretical speculations far in extent of what can be found at that time (think the Big Bang singularity).

Yea we have all that but we don't stop there, if something by definition cannot be proven or tested, it's not good science. We may not be able to prove every theory now, but we have people working at it, we don't formulate theories without the intention of trying to check it.

What and you think philosophers just present theories with no intention of trying to check or prove them at all? This is so antithetical to any work of philosophy that I've read, from Plato on down, that's it blows my mind. Given that a large part of philosophy is trying to logically prove things, what you're implying is patently false.

No I haven't. Are philosophical theories made with the intention of experimentation?

Philosophical works are made with the intention of presenting a logically airtight case for or against some concept or position. Are some of those things amenable to empirical inquiry? Sure. All? No, and if you see this as a problem you've basically destroyed science's own foundation.

What do you hope to gain by setting up experimentation as the sole determinator of truth? In fact, present to me an experiment you would do to determine what "truth" itself is, and then you'll see why your question makes a self-refuting assumption (i.e it's basically what is known as "logical positivism", which I'm happy to explain if Google doesn't suffice for you).