Take elementary particles - we can't see them with a microscope or experience them in any practical sense, all we have as the theory they fit into. Philosophy is about the same - we have some beliefs about thins around as and what we experience in life fit these beliefs . Same thing, really.
Ehhhh...not really.
Science is eventually borne out of philosophy, but they are two completely different things. Science bases its theories on evidence, where philosophy is just conjecture. The only requirement for philosophy is that it stays within the bounds of logic, it is not concerned with evidence. This is why a philosophical argument can be logically sound, but still have no bearing on reality.
Granted, some scientific theories have a lot more evidence than others. However, even things like elementary particles have circumstantial and indirect evidence for them. True, we can't *see* them, but we can't see gravity either. Can you claim that theory has no evidence?
We can't see the particles but we heavily suspect they exist because of the influence they have on the particles we
can observe. Dark matter is the same way. We have no idea what it is, but we know it exists because it exerts influence on the gravitation pull of observable star systems all over the Universe.
The branch of philosophy that makes evidence-based claims without any evidence is usually called religion, but most philosophy, good philosophy at least, stays within the bounds of logic.
