How does one respond to this argument?It's long but an interesting read. Thanks :)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Do you have a scientific study or physical evidence to prove that the scientific method is the only way to validate knowledge beliefs? (knowledge is belief that has already been justified as true)

Oh is there a way to validate beliefs against observable reality without science? please do tell what it is.

That's an argument from ignorance. Now support your assertion.

[Aoi Magi]

Oh is there a way to validate beliefs against observable reality without science? please do tell what it is.

That's an argument from ignorance. Now support your assertion.

Yes I am ignorant, that is why I am asking you what's the alternative.

[pocaracas]

Sadly, as iconic as this quote is... It's wrong...ish.
Real is that which exists.
Our apparently best description of this real is provided by science.

Some people like to confuse "reality" with "our universe". And, as far as we can tell, they are the same...but they may not be... So better not close that door.
If there is anything beyond our universe, it should be a part of reality, and, as such, should be subject to scientific scrutiny...likely requiring some yet unknown extra-universal physics.

[robvalue]

Sure. I looked into it before, and it seemed to me that something is physical if it exists, and vice versa. Is this the case, in scientific lingo?

You continue to try and pick a fight with me Chad after I made it clear, twice, I'm not interested. So I shall completely ignore you from now on.

[SteveII]

Yes, reality is the physical world. Physical means (literally) real; as opposed to an abstract concept. "Nonphysical existence" is a contradiction in terms, as far as I can see.

Yes, philosophy alone deals only with the abstract. As soon as you take any measurements from reality, you're doing science as well.

"Science" is not part of reality, it's a method. So yes, science is regulated by philosophy; it requires underpinning principles. It is like the adapter between philosophy and reality.

[Feel free to correct me science dudes!]

That is incorrect. You are not defining a word. You are making a philosophical statement that reality consists only of physical things. If the supernatural exists, that would then be part of reality yet non-physical. If you espouse dualism, then the mind would be part of reality yet non-physical. If you are a platonist, than abstract objects are part of reality yet not physical. 

Regarding "philosophy alone deals only with the abstract", perhaps it's just your wording, but this article from Wikipedia clearly shows that philosophy is woven through science (not abstract): 

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

I don't think science is the adapter between philosophy and reality. Not just because the definition of reality can easily be more than the physical world, but I think it might be more accurate to say that philosophy is the adapter (meaning explanatory filter) between science and reality. In that sense, philosophy would also server as the adapter between any hypothesis and reality (for example God).