Ideal Science

From PhilosophyAndScienceSeekTruth:

[...] Science seeks useful explanations, whereby 'useful' means capable of predicting future observations. Science is rather apathetic towards truth; it matters not whether the models are true, only that they are useful, testable, and not contradicted by present or future evidence. Philosophy, meanwhile, cares little about information or evidence or anything derived directly from the outside world; philosophy deals with 'what ifs', axioms, postulates. That isn't to say philosophy doesn't care about truth, but the truths drawn from philosophy are invariably tied to the axioms and postulates that, themselves, cannot be deductively proven... and often can be inductively disproven, judging by how often I've seen "Spiders have 8 legs" as a premise to a deductive argument. Various maths fall under philosophy... they're sort of the 'hard philosophy', just like sciences based in measurement are 'hard sciences'.

Science neither requires nor implies the existence of AbsoluteTruth?; it operates by inductive logics, and relies on its own evidence that future predictions can be aided by modeling past predictions. Philosophy, however, often deals with absolute truths... e.g. "'if P then P' is true under some logic systems". It just doesn't deal with truth about the real world.

I'd like to copy parts from (the middle of) MemesAndAttractors here:

Hard-science is everything that has the property "if it is not testable by experiment, then it is not useful".

Hard-philosophy is everything that has the property "if it is not valid (formally derivable from axioms), then it is not useful".

The "it" in both definitions seem to be ideas (science calls them hypothesis, philosophy calls them questions). The processes of investigation are called "science" or "philosophy." Am I getting this right? -- BrucePennington