I can ask you a question that makes many people become more drawn in science than philosophy.Science in many times uses “experiment” to legup and it fetches evidnce to proove the “rules of nature”. but in talking there is no evidence for reality or existance,or answering “how” or “why” questions concerned with nature…

I guess that depends on your notions of Reality, wholeness and ‘knowing’. I think Reality might be complex in character and irreducible to a simpler entity, that`s why I think it is reasonable to consider Reality as an inconsistent and complex whole. Since Natural Sciences try to simplify a natural phenomenon, in other words uncover the simple mathematical rule behind the phenomenon, I do not think they are capable of seeing the whole chaotic, inconsistent and complex ‘picture’. I don’t think Philosophy is capable of that either, understanding Nature in my humble opinion is a process which accomplishes its objective, only by using interdisciplinary methods.

In part three you have discussed that science is not able to know the *reality* as a *whole*. (I wish you had explained it more. But, I think I get what you say.) Do you mean that philosophy has succeeded at it? If the answer is yes, how?