Not proof that araneae's statement is accurate, of course, but a demonstration that science continues to encroach on the domain of philosophy in ways that the philosophers of old could never have imagined:
Back in the 17th century there was an argument between Descartes and Spinoza about how knowledge was formed. Descartes said that we heard a proposition, judged it on the evidence, and then either believed or rejected it depending on its merits. Spinoza said that, instead, our tendancy was to at first believe anything we heard and then only later reject it after some reflection. Over the centuries most people agreed with Descartes, but recently neuroscience has shown pretty conclusively that Spinoza was right. [1][2] So be very careful in assuming that science will never swallow any particular part of philosophy.
Back in the 17th century there was an argument between Descartes and Spinoza about how knowledge was formed. Descartes said that we heard a proposition, judged it on the evidence, and then either believed or rejected it depending on its merits. Spinoza said that, instead, our tendancy was to at first believe anything we heard and then only later reject it after some reflection. Over the centuries most people agreed with Descartes, but recently neuroscience has shown pretty conclusively that Spinoza was right. [1][2] So be very careful in assuming that science will never swallow any particular part of philosophy.
[1] http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/Gilbert%20et%20al%20%28UNBEL... [2] http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/Gilbert%20et%20al%20(EVERYTH...