Some philosophers can learn maths and provide useful interpretation of science to the non technical - easier ways to visualize and use it. Others can turn their analytic skills to solving actual political and social problems that we have - eg. as Marcum seems to be suggesting for medicine.
Backwards and forwards banter about metaphysics has been redundant since Wittgenstein and not much use since much earlier.
Mmm I think there are real and clear issues with science in terns of its relationship with philosophy currently. The challenge that Kuhn made to Popper's idea of falsifiability as it happens in practice us still value. Added to that the more recent push from some scientists that falsifiability may no linger be useful and there are issues about what it is we can take from science going forward.
Taking this with the alternative push from those like Sam Harris to jump the ought/is gap by simply declaring it not a gap, and adding this to the problems we have determining even basic factual knowledge seemingly increasing, I think the idea of philosophy being the amanuensis of science is mistaken.
That said, it's a bit like Samuel"s thread on !meaning and delusion that on a day to day level both philsophy and science (as opposed to technology) have little import for any of us.
