The main difference between philosophy and science

[Philosophy Explorer]

It seems to me that science can live without a perfect theory by accepting theories that can explain partially while studying to gain knowledge to get closer to perfect knowledge; and philosophy isn't happy unless it can have a perfect explanation as to what's happening whatever the field of interest and isn't satisfied with partial explanation so it looks for a complete explanation now and doesn't want to wait.

PhilX

[Scott Mayers]

It seems to me that science can live without a perfect theory by accepting theories that can explain partially while studying to gain knowledge to get closer to perfect knowledge; and philosophy isn't happy unless it can have a perfect explanation as to what's happening whatever the field of interest and isn't satisfied with partial explanation so it looks for a complete explanation now and doesn't want to wait.

PhilX

This is a fair interpretation. Philosophy is the broad class of which science is a subset. The aim for certainty narrowed its range for "Natural" aspects to deal with concerns about the world that were 'true' regardless of our presence. But the 'divorce' of science by many is about the base of majority of those who "labor" for science. So many treat science as exclusively limited to determining 'truth' beyond practice.

Theory though, is properly a combined function of philosophy and science.

Logic (philosophy) moves from first principles UP --> <--Science (practice) moves top-down from observation to determine what can be used to predict OR to seek those first principles. So their goals converge.