I don’t think @lemming‘s response was all that off the mark. You guys are referring to how scientific theories don’t graduate to scientific law (which is true of course) in your criticism of his statement, but @lemming was quite accurate in his original statement. Basically, philosophy seeks to understand the world using reason, the mind and thought experiments to answer questions of our universe. When better tools become available through science to give definitive answers on those questions, then they “graduate” from being philosophical theories to scientific fact. In other words, philosophy can “move up” to science, but scientific theories don’t change into scientific laws—they are two separate issues.
One example is the nature of matter. For many centuries, philosophers debated the nature of what things were made of, but as tools like magnifying lenses, microscopes, microspectrometers and atom-smashers were invented, those questions have “graduated” into the realms of chemistry microbiology and physics.
As noted by others above, there are philosophy of mind questions that have informed and shaped the research into Neurology, and Psychology. As hard science begins to answer them through observation and experimentation, then those questions will gradually leave the realm of Philosophy.
@cazzie Philosophy IS logic and critical thinking. Those are the fundamental toolset of a philosopher, just as paints and canvas are to a painter. Some people have this mistaken mental picture of philosophers sitting in a room on a mat smoking pot and “philosophizing” on stuff that’s “way deep.” Philosophy is nothing like this in practice and is quite possibly the most mentally rigorous of any discipline of study (it’s like being cross-examined by Good Will Hunting).