system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why isn't there any consensus in the philosophic community like there is in the scientific community?
gpt
The simplest answer is that many of the objects of study in philosophy are not as directly experienced as the hard sciences are. If scientists disagree on the interior structure of an apple, they can obtain apples, split them open, view them through microscopes, and so on.

But if philosophers differ on the nature of Being, we cannot go look at the nature of Being. We can't pick it up and study it with a microscope. There are many theories about Being, but there are no experiments to see if Being really is this way or that way - because we cannot access it in that manner. The same is true for all these debated topics in philosophy: consciousness, ethics, value theory, knowledge, God, etc. We instead form justified beliefs about these topics based on what we can and do experience.

Of course, science is not wholly exempted from this either. Science depends on our sense experience, for example; if our senses do not convey reality to us, then science isn't conveying anything about reality to us either. It's just conveying the world we appear to see, so if that world is fake (like in the Matrix), the real world may be completely different. But if we assume our senses do convey reality to us as it relates to our senses, then science has a much firmer foundation. The same can be true for some other parts of philosophy; not everything is heavily debated or has no consensus. But all the same, there is little which is wholly unable to be contested, either.