Mixing disciplines

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6626935.ece 

An interesting article my parents pointed out to me in The Sunday Times. I don't read it much but they sometimes point out articles to me. 

It seems that Scruton doesn't approve of the mixing of science with philosophy; I had always assumed that it was a good thing. If I have a question to answer I usually like to draw on as many sources as possible and consider all the evidence, isn't that good practice? Science can contribute to the philosophical debate by adding points to the mixing pot of the debate. If you are looking for the 'right' answer, whatever definition of right you want, then you should consider every possibility, not disregard some because they are not related to your discipline. I like philosophy for this reason, I get to consider things from different angles.

Perhaps as scientific knowledge increases philosophy, like religion, will decrease. That would be sad. But if we find something that proves that we are all puppets in an endless display of entertainment for some higher powers, what is there left to consider? If science answered all of our questions, what would we do? I don't know, and these thoughts are making me want to go and sabotage science to keep the idea of philosophy alive.

Luckily, I don't actually think that philosophy will die. To return to the analogy of religion, we can't get rid of that, no matter how irrational it may seem in the age of science. I think there will always be a space for philosophy, as if we answer one question, another is bound to be raised. We will always be able to think of something we don't know.

I still don't think Scruton is right. Maybe science will be able to prove some things but there will always be something to philosophise about.