Philosophy Versus Science

[GrandizerII]

From a historical perspective, science developed within philosophy but spun off into its own discipline with its own methods.  So in my opinion, scientists are no longer accountable to philosophers because the available evidence supports scientific ideas instead.  Further, science has incorporated the most useful bits of philosophy into its own methods, so scientists can do their own philosophy when necessary to develop their hypotheses.

There is no versus, and no one is holding scientists accountable to philosophers. But when you want to debate the philosophy of science, you have to do philosophy. You cannot justify science without adhering to some philosophical worldview (whatever it may be).

And if "scientists can do their own philosophy", then this doesn't sound like philosophy is in opposition to science. And for the record, I don't accept that scientists are doing their own philosophy in the sense that they are doing a kind of philosophy that philosophers don't get to do. Science is science, and philosophy is philosophy. There is no such thing as "scientist-only philosophy".

However I have heard arguments, especially from theists, claiming that science must still prove itself to philosophers.  They claim that science is necessarily tied to metaphysical naturalism and not just to methodological naturalism, so that it automatically excludes certain ideas and evidence.  These kinds of claims comprised a long back-and-forth in the Atheist Discussion forum.

Maybe, but this wouldn't discredit philosophy anyway. Because even methodological naturalism is a philosophical position. And still warrants justification in certain debates to do with evidence and epistemology.