The big difference is the method.  The people you cite made arguments based on premises and those arguments taken together (to their belief) were consistent.  When people attacked the arguments and premises, they defended them.  When the arguments or premises were eventually found to be indefensible, they were abandoned.  Their premises, when based on religious texts, were bad - but the very method that they championed is what exposed that.<p>The scientific method itself is a product of Western Philosophy.  The very fact that you know these philosophers were wrong about many things is thanks to the very tradition they were upholding.<p>My brief exposure to &quot;Eastern Philosophy&quot; in college was interesting as it did not really feel like philosophy.  It seemed to be nuggets of so-called wisdom presented without argument.  It very much reminded me of some books in the old testament and even some pre-Socratic philosophy.  It came across basically as religious&#x2F;mystic dogma.