"In philosophy only requirement is that your proposed argument have to make sense in context of the system of thinking that you have put forward. You generally can't really prove your point with observable facts in philosophy and even if you are somehow able to that just means you have gone beyond what is expected of you as that is not a hard requirement."

So the difference is that you set lower standards for aspiring philosophers than for aspiring physicists, and the problem is somehow with the field?

You said earlier you respect philosophy as much as physics, yet you appear not to give credence to philosophy as being as intellectually rigorous as physics when it comes to substantiating its positions with evidence - this is why you see it as being less definitive, appparently.

Yet even when philosophers prove their point - demonstrable evidence - you seem to think that's exceeding the expectations of philosophy... because people haven't practiced doing anything different.

Labeling anything a "natural science" is a difference made by people without explaining it - if you're just doing what somebody else told you to without understanding why, you're probably not a good guide, just an obedient one.

"Everything we think, say and do are biased so you are not in a position to argue what is logical or not."

Perceptions are biased; choices need not be. Your lack of ability and/or imagination in no way applies to others, so perhaps this perceived "impossibility" is just a limitation of yours?