Philosophy vs Science debate

When the question asking what philosophy ever gave to the world was raised in the debate, it would have been nice to have heard, science for instance...If anything meaningful and useful was brought out from philosophy it was science and science consolidation as a methodology and a field of knowledge. What the heck, evidently science wasn't born in a day you know...I mean it is unbelievable the all train of thought of western civilization can be questioned without a proper reply coming up immediately !
When the data is not yet available one necessarily has to ask what are to be the relevant hypothesis making sense to bring fourth for future scientific investigation ? What is the criteria ? That is the job of philosophers of science...what else ?
Furthermore, even when there is data but data is hard to interpret and put in context, what other job is there to do if not philosophical clarification ?
The naivety and lack of general information on the western rational thought process and tradition by eminent scientific names is appalling and quite frankly scaring !

In the first video they seem to be addressing the "philosophy of science" as opposed to Philosophy in general, or Philosophy as it applies to Science.

I'm not sure I know what "Philosophy of Science" is really. So I can't comment much beyond that at this point.

Fil, well put indeed. While inspiration for Einstein's early work for instance can be attributed largely to intuition, according to the general principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, one can attribute it almost equally to philo

I am not sure you don't know or you don't want to know, and that perhaps perfectly illustrates the problem with the pseudo contention between science and philosophy...in any case there isn't much in the way to figure it out.

Like I said, I don't know. And unfortunately I don't have the time to learn about it at the moment.