What is the connection between philosophy and science?

This is a big problem. Many answers to this question are actually just conceptual analysis, saying, "What kind of relationship do I think they should be?" But in fact, philosophy and science have their own traditions, and their mainstream and powerful forces do not pay much attention to how to get along, but continue their respective traditions and do things in their respective fields.

As far as philosophers are concerned, different people have different opinions. Especially in the 20th century (19), the strength of natural science made philosophers more aware of the relationship with science. Many philosophers try to make philosophy as rigorous as natural science, such as American pragmatism, European phenomenology and logical positivism. Their relationship with natural science is so delicate that it is difficult to explain it clearly in a few words.

I think as far as most philosophical researchers are concerned, they still want to do things within their own traditional framework, and I am afraid there are not many philosophers who really consider interacting with science. This judgment should be the same for scientists.

Let me start with the questioner's supplementary question.

Some people say that no one in China won the Nobel Prize because there is no real philosopher in China. Is this correct?

I don't think so. As far as I know, the Nobel Prize is actually mainly awarded to the empirical field. For example, Hawking made great achievements in theoretical cosmology but did not win the Nobel Prize. In other words, the Nobel Prize is not directly related to major issues such as philosophy. I also believe that winning the Nobel Prize only needs to be at the forefront in the field of science, not necessarily a real philosopher, let alone a real philosopher in China. The connection between them is too vague. (Counterexample: Is there a real philosopher in Japan? Did the Japanese win less Nobel Prize? )

Will people who don't understand philosophy become scientists? Concentrate on scientific research, regardless of his philosophy.

It should be possible. Natural science has its own complete method, in which you can make achievements, but you may naturally think about some philosophical problems after studying it to a certain extent. Because not everything can be proved by experiments, and not everything can be done by yourself.

If you don't know science, can you become a philosopher to explain the "existence" of the world?

Of course. Philosophers in history know little about science ... these are two different ways of thinking. Although it is possible to get through, as far as I know, not only those who do philosophy at home, but also those who do philosophy abroad have high natural science literacy.

In the classical period, Descartes was both a scientist and a philosopher, which is very convincing. British empiricism philosophy denies the certainty of mathematics and physics. If they don't understand, dare they deny it?

British empiricism philosophy denies the certainty of mathematics and physics? Who the hell is it? What exactly does denying certainty mean? Or just don't admit that mathematics is a natural concept?

Now that there are so many fields of scientific subdivision, is it necessary to learn everything before engaging in philosophy? Otherwise, how dare you explain the world so well that you are not afraid of being laughed at by real experts? Or is it that philosophy can only be played for nothing now, and there is no such person as Descartes?

Not only are there many fields of scientific subdivision, but there are also many fields of philosophical subdivision. After learning, it is basically impossible to engage in philosophy.

Laughed at by real experts, there are ready-made examples, you can search for "Sokal incident". A group of scientific philosophers were satirized by scientists because they didn't understand science. But this is also controversial. Even if you don't know much about specific science, you can do some work on philosophy of science. After all, both of them have their own way of thinking.

What does it mean to play virtual? This sentence is too empty. I think American philosophy of mind is better combined with natural science, like John? John Searle, Daniel? Dennett did a very good job, actively catered to the development of cognition and neuroscience, and did a lot of philosophical work as a philosopher to study consciousness. This is definitely not a virtual game.