I suppose what differs between my way of thinking and, for example, the Scientific Method is that I find it rather limiting and greatly abused. It serves a function and it is great but there is often more hoopla and hyperbole surrounding it than actual “Science” as it were.
The uncertainty may be built-in to the system, but I find few that actually follow it well. Also, due to the limitations of a solely externalist perspective, I can endorse the Scientific Method for being “good for what it’s good for”, but its boundaries are easy to spot… and besides which, modern Science is *terrible* at history. That is one of the things I like about Philosophy – Philosophy has a much better grasp of History, something greatly missing from the Science communities.
I also do not like the power structure within the Sciences. HOW Theoretical Physics got on top of the food chain, I will never fully grasp, except perhaps it serves the Religious/Spiritual function of the family. It’s marvelous but its absolute dependence upon mathematics has been getting dangerous as of late, as certain proponents are actually wanting to “untether” Theoretical Physics from verification through evidence. That single step will remove it from the Sciences altogether, imo, and move it into… well, perhaps a new branch of Philosophy or perhaps another department.