This essay proposes to differentiate between science and philosophy on the evidence that the truth of scientific, or, more generally, empirical, statements is perspectival whereas the truth of a philosophical statement is not. A perspectival truth depends upon a perspective in the sense that it may no longer be acceptable after the point of view which determines a perspective has been changed to another. Accordingly, the admission of perspectival truth requires the existence of alternative perspectives. The existence of alternative perspectives (...) does not mean that every statement which is true in one of them is false in another. Some statements, to be called perspectivally invariant, remain true regardless of the perspective. But the admission of perspectival truth requires at least one statement to be true in one perspective but false in an alternative perspective. Two perspectives, no matter how different in other respects, will not be called alternative unless they involve perspectival truth. The point is important. For no one denies that perspectives differ with regard to their heuristic value, i.e. no one would deny that a certain point of view may lead us to findings which from a different point of view might remain indiscernible and therefore undiscovered. But the opponents of perspectival truth and of alternative perspectives argue, with W. R. Dennes, that once a truth has been established the same finding can be acknowledged by a true statement in any other perspective although the acknowledgment may call for a restatement in a different idiom or language. The issue is between the admission of perspectival truth, on the one hand, and the contention of interperspectival translatability of truth, on the other. (shrink)