Philosophy Versus Science

[Sheldon]

Yes, there are unquestionably all sorts of useful spinoffs from philosophy which, like science, are no longer accountable to philosophers.  I would include logic in that list.

Yeah, now you're just going through the list and declaring that everything YOU consider worthwhile and successful isn't philosophy, and everything you consider to be not worthwhile is philosophy. 

The same way you decided arbitrarily, and incorrectly what science can examine. 

The people who write the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy think that logic is a part of philosophy.

It takes less than a second to see that this is only true if philosophy adheres to the principles of logic. For example if one made an argument that used a known logical fallacy, like an "appeal to authority fallacy" for example, then that assertion would not be true, do I need to join the dots here? 
That same encyclopaedia has been cited by quite a few religious apologists trying to peddle a definition of atheism that is woefully out of date, and doesn't reflect common usage, for example. 

If you have an argument to explain why every field in philosophy has to be a failure by definition, while every field which is successful is not philosophy, you could argue for that, I guess.

You mean the way you disingenuously implied that technology is not directly resulting from scientific methodology? Or that science is limited to methodological naturalism, rather than there being nothing else for science to objectively examine.