Note in parent comment the phrase &quot;<i>it fails to mention how exactly philosophy of science has been or is to be useful to scientists</i>&quot;. You are arguing for some kind of general usefulness of philosophy to scientists, but the parent comment was much more narrow and specific than that: it was about usefulness of philosophy of science to the practice of science.<p>&gt; <i>We&#x27;re supposed to read that and think &#x27;Hah, yeah - birds don&#x27;t know and can&#x27;t know anything about ornithology, how can it be useful to them?!&#x27;</i><p>I think you misunderstood the quote. Birds will not fly any differently whether ornithologists study them or not. That is what it means that ornithology is not useful to birds: the birds will not use ornithology to make decisions about flying. Feynman, as a practicing scientist, was well-placed to say whether philosophy of science informed his practice of science, so his comment absolutely does not reflect his ignorance.<p>&gt; <i>but philosophy (and other non-scientific disciplines) support and inform every aspect of life around her job.</i><p>The things that you listed won&#x27;t inform how a scientist does science, so they don&#x27;t really address the core of the question.