This is unfortunately true of many species of philosophers, and in many ways they are responsible for their own growing public irrelevance. Growing, if not fully accomplished!
So, I agree with your post to the extent that it applies to much of the last hundred years of philosophy. We see the results of this disparity in guys like Lawrence Krauss, who says much the same thing.
It's a hard argument to counter, not because it's a good argument, but because culturally and educationally we lack the common philosophical vocabulary to identify its problems, without running aground on local political issues. We are all children of Descartes and we are catechized our whole lives to think in reductionist terms and anticipate reductionist answers to every facet of human experience.
I completely disagree with your hard distinction between Science and Philosophy, but I don't have a quick-and-dirty answer for you. I know why you see this distinction, and there's truth in it, but also, to my mind, deep error. I would suggest you look at the history of philosophy of science, its origins in Bacon and Descartes and a much older philosophical debate that transcends questions of whether "good answers" are given and dives deeper into the nature of answers themselves. Any honest appraisal of this history of ideas I think must identify a larger meta-debate, not between "Science" and "Philosophy" but between two opposing Philosophies, two opposing Sciences, in fact.
So, I agree with your post to the extent that it applies to much of the last hundred years of philosophy. We see the results of this disparity in guys like Lawrence Krauss, who says much the same thing.
It's a hard argument to counter, not because it's a good argument, but because culturally and educationally we lack the common philosophical vocabulary to identify its problems, without running aground on local political issues. We are all children of Descartes and we are catechized our whole lives to think in reductionist terms and anticipate reductionist answers to every facet of human experience.
I completely disagree with your hard distinction between Science and Philosophy, but I don't have a quick-and-dirty answer for you. I know why you see this distinction, and there's truth in it, but also, to my mind, deep error. I would suggest you look at the history of philosophy of science, its origins in Bacon and Descartes and a much older philosophical debate that transcends questions of whether "good answers" are given and dives deeper into the nature of answers themselves. Any honest appraisal of this history of ideas I think must identify a larger meta-debate, not between "Science" and "Philosophy" but between two opposing Philosophies, two opposing Sciences, in fact.