As dearly as I wish that people would be far more rational when making decisions, I find it disquieting that philosophy is considered dead in some scientific circles. And I say this as a gigantic atheist–one of the biggest atheists ever. Empiricism is a wonderful, vital thing, but I think philosophy is more important than ever in our Information Age. I know weak-minded philosophy can be damaging but so can science unfettered from ethics. I believe every great scientist has been fortified by philosophy (and every great philosopher by science). From “The Folly of Scientism,” Austin L. Hughes’ New Atlantis essay on the topic:

“Modern science is often described as having emerged from philosophy; many of the early modern scientists were engaged in what they called ‘natural philosophy.’ Later, philosophy came to be seen as an activity distinct from but integral to natural science, with each addressing separate but complementary questions — supporting, correcting, and supplying knowledge to one another. But the status of philosophy has fallen quite a bit in recent times. Central to scientism is the grabbing of nearly the entire territory of what were once considered questions that properly belong to philosophy. Scientism takes science to be not only better than philosophy at answering such questions, but the only means of answering them. For most of those who dabble in scientism, this shift is unacknowledged, and may not even be recognized. But for others, it is explicit. [Peter] Atkins, for example, is scathing in his dismissal of the entire field: ‘I consider it to be a defensible proposition that no philosopher has helped to elucidate nature; philosophy is but the refinement of hindrance.’

Is scientism defensible? Is it really true that natural science provides a satisfying and reasonably complete account of everything we see, experience, and seek to understand — of every phenomenon in the universe? And is it true that science is more capable, even singularly capable, of answering the questions that once were addressed by philosophy? This subject is too large to tackle all at once. But by looking briefly at the modern understandings of science and philosophy on which scientism rests, and examining a few case studies of the attempt to supplant philosophy entirely with science, we might get a sense of how the reach of scientism exceeds its grasp.”