Philosophy vs. Science by Joseph Rowlands
The historical relationship between science and philosophy has not been a friendly one. Philosophers like to start with their conclusions, and work to prove them. When it came to trying to figure out what the world was like, philosophers tended to argue about what the world should be like. Science was born as a rejection of this method. Its goal was to figure out what the world was really all about, and its primary tool was actual experimentation.

We've all seen philosophy at its worst. Philosophers are often completely disconnected from reality and, more recently, don't care. Rationalism, the view that only deductive knowledge is really reliable, is commonplace. Philosophers often expound their ideas from armchairs and ivory towers, where the facts of reality don't concern them.

It's not surprising science would want to distance itself from philosophy. It becomes even more personal for the scientist when he's told that he must conform to preconceived views of the world. It started with Galileo having to renounce his scientific views on astronomy, but continued through the ages. Countless other scientists have had to hide their views on topics like evolution, the age of the earth and the existence of glaciers, with a range of punishments from the inquisition and burning at the stake to losing their jobs or financing. Philosophy, often in the form of religion, does not seek the truth. It seeks believers, and the truth is an enemy.

So science has good reasons to be wary of philosophy. Given the history and the nature of most philosophies, it's tempting to reject the whole field as being worthless. That would be a mistake because it's based on a faulty understanding of what philosophy is. And when you reject something based on a false understanding of it, you're likely to fall straight into the false dichotomy.