Your teacher argues that philosophy done well is science and philosophy done poorly is. . . well, philosophy. What advantage is there with doing a philosophy predicated on science (Edward O. Wilson's Consilience) versus a more traditional route? What are the drawbacks to a purely scientific endeavor in this regard?

The definition of science is basically an individuals that build and organizes knowledge with explanations and predictions about our universe. Science is a method, and scientists go off of observation and experiment. Scientists develope models to explain how the world works. Science goes off of the fundamental laws of physics. And as we know philosophy studies questions that can be answered by obsevation and experiment. It all tells us what is true about our universe, E.O Wilson believed that knowledge has no boundaries and that all knowledge together can explain everything in this world.

E.O Wilson thought the idea that the way everone thinks should be based on physics. The law of physics evolve as we learned in the law of evoltion. He believed their was a way to unite all sciences.  He also had an idea of consiliance, which was that everything is connected together on the deepest level possible. We learned that everything is made up of positive and negativer early on in this class so I believe his idea is correct in every way.