Have you seen the play "Winning"

[.]

Improving the FREE THEATER OF THE GREATER INTERNET; Play:Winning.

NYT today:"In particular, he thinks the reflections of physicists
themselves on their methods and results have been much more productive
and insightful than those of philosophers. (See Rationally Speaking
for a pro-philosophy reply."

'Okay, to begin with, it is fair to point out that the only people who
read works in theoretical physics are theoretical physicists, so by
Krauss’ own reasoning both fields are largely irrelevant to everybody
else (they aren’t, of course). Second, once again, the business of
philosophy (of science, in particular) is not to solve scientific
problems — we’ve got science for that (Julia and I explain what
philosophers of science do here). To see how absurd Krauss’ complaint
is just think of what it would sound like if he had said that
historians of science haven’t solved a single puzzle in theoretical
physics. That’s because historians do history, not science. When was
the last time a theoretical physicist solved a problem in history,
pray?'

'So is philosophy of science, as Richard Feynman famously quipped, "as
useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds?" Or was philosopher
Daniel Dennett closer to the truth when he said, "There is no such
thing as philosophy-free science, only science whose philosophical
baggage is taken on-board unexamined?"