Final answer:
Science is bound by empirical evidence and measurable phenomena, making it ill-suited to address questions of morality, ethics, and metaphysics, where philosophy can provide insight through logical argumentation and critical analysis.
Step-by-step explanation:
It's a compelling conundrum as to whether there are questions that science cannot answer, but philosophy can. To illustrate, science deals with empirical data and measurable phenomena, thus it can provide answers to queries such as "What caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?" through evidence like fossils. Yet, when we confront questions like "Is there a best way to live?" or "Do humans have free will?", we delve into the realm of ethics, metaphysics, and human consciousness — areas where science reaches its limits due to the subjective and non-material nature of these queries.
Philosophy, unlike empirical science, thrives in this domain, exploring these questions through logical argumentation, critical analysis, and discussion of the profound human experience. An example of a question where philosophy can provide insight is "Is it better to be just, even if one could get away with being unjust?" Science cannot measure justice or offer a factual determination on moral matters, but philosophy engages with these concepts through ethical theories and moral reasoning.
Therefore, while scientific knowledge is self-building and relies on observables, philosophy asks foundational questions about our world, existence, values, and reasoning without necessitating empirical evidence. Historical philosophical contributions and the ongoing practice of philosophy continue to shape our understanding of such questions beyond the scope of scientific methodology.