On the note regarding philosophy of science, I think the field has gotten far too specialized to treat certain scientific questions both philosophically rigorously and scientifically rigorously. Quantum Mechanics, for example, especially is often mishandled by layman which leads many scientists to roll their eyes and dismiss any kind of philosophical investigation (taking the shut up and calculate approach instead). But there are important philosophical things to discuss in physics- namely interpretations of quantum mechanics (measurement problem for example). These need to be treated with great rigor and I think it is a rather niche intersection (Sean M. Carroll only comes to mind but I am relatively ignorant of this intersection of the fields). Finally, I do think that there is an inevitable level of friction between philosophy and science namely because axiomatically they treat different kinds of problems. A scientist may not really be bothered with philosophical treatments and take a shut up and calculate approach (regardless of any stigma that arises from a "popscience" treatment of physics) simply because a philosophical treatment is not necessarily important/relevant to them.
On the note regarding philosophy of science, I think the field has gotten far too specialized to treat certain scientific questions both philosophically rigorously and scientifically rigorously. Quantum Mechanics, for example, especially is often mishandled by layman which leads many scientists to roll their eyes and dismiss any kind of philosophical investigation (taking the shut up and calculate approach instead). But there are important philosophical things to discuss in physics- namely interpretations of quantum mechanics (measurement problem for example). These need to be treated with great rigor and I think it is a rather niche intersection (Sean M. Carroll only comes to mind but I am relatively ignorant of this intersection of the fields).
Finally, I do think that there is an inevitable level of friction between philosophy and science namely because axiomatically they treat different kinds of problems. A scientist may not really be bothered with philosophical treatments and take a shut up and calculate approach (regardless of any stigma that arises from a "popscience" treatment of physics) simply because a philosophical treatment is not necessarily important/relevant to them.
why anything should be reviewed? I thought experiment is the judge, not human..