Ahhh. I think I see now. Very well. Science cannot be used with Philosophy, just as Science cannot be used with Religion as Science rejects the axioms, premises, and assumptions imbued in both those activities. Science can be used to evaluate objective claims by either Philosophy or Religion, but is indifferent to the abstractions that comprise either activity.
It's nothing to do with religion, as science is not dependent on religion.
Science doesn't reject the axioms, it simply can't say anything on them because they are beyond its scope. Before we can start "doing science" we must accept certain, unprovable things as being true, or at least assumed true.
So for example, science can provide useful information on how to reduce poverty, or the benefits of vaccinating children against measles.
It cannot tell us the extent to which we should tax the rich to give to the poor, or whether parents should have the right to leave their children unvaccinated.
Claims for a "scientific" morality tend to assume some kind of utilitarian ethics, but the assumption that the most ethical action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people can never be tested scientifically, it must be taken as axiomatically true.
Science cannot tell me what a virtue is, although with some, it might help me to achieve the goals that I've decided upon axiomatically.
It cannot tell me if utilitarianism is better than virtue ethics as there are no criteria by which one could judge this that do not depend entirely on axiomatic ethical principles (any test would basically be tautological - utilitarianism is best because it helps produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people).
In this scenario, a scientific approach would say that the problem is a political one and that there is no one right or universal answer to be applied to all governmental entities. The limit will be specific to each governmental entity and determined by the specific political structure and forces at play for that governmental entity.
And will also be dependent on the philosophical perspectives of the decision makers (ideologies).
So here you accept the limits of science, and implicitly accept the need for philosophical principles in decision making.
The sciences can contribute to producing better outcomes, but only after
we have decided upon what constitute better outcomes (which involves philosophy).
This then still supports my position that Science is improved Philosophy, superseding and replacing it. Philosophy becomes part of the historical story of human kinds pursuit of knowledge.
Experimental natural philosophy, which later came to be called science, was certainly an improvement on rationalistic natural philosophy. The sciences are the best methods for studying things that lie within their scope.
Science is an improvement on older forms of natural philosophy and replaced these older forms of natural philosophy.
As we have just seen above, making a blanket statement that science improved on and replaced [all of] philosophy is obviously false. You claim you want to remove barriers between disciplines, but it seems to me that you are artificially constructing them simply because you don't like the word philosophy and have some fantastical idea about "Philosophers" who think they are inerrant, refuse to be rigorous in method and claim to have some special knowledge only they are privy to. This is largely a strawman.
Philosophy is a field, anyone who engages with issues within that field is doing philosophy. They don't need to be "A Philosopher" any more than I need to be "An Artist" to draw a stickman.
So we have seen with ethics that science is useless without the moral axioms and frameworks in which it operates. In this case science is not an improvement on philosophy as this aspect of philosophy lies outside its scope.
The same is true across the other areas of philosophy that you previously declared obsolete, they aren't always as easy to see as the ones in morality though.
Why do you think Einstein notes the following given he knows exponentially more about science and philosophy than we do? He clearly doesn't see philosophy as obsolete, and the 2nd quote gives an example why.
“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."
"Heisenberg asserted that only observable magnitudes [facts] must go into a theory and chided Einstein that he himself had stressed this in formulating the theory of gravity. Einstein's response was classic: "Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning but it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep in mind what one has observed. But on principle it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality, the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe [the facts]"
The 2nd quote provides an example of a something that is part of the philosophy of science, and why understanding this is of value to the "seeker after truth". It is a way to think about
science. As you said, we shouldn't put up barriers between subject areas, but simply saying philosophy is obsolete because you have arbitrarily renamed anything in philosophy that is required as "science" and that this renaming somehow makes the process more rigorous is like saying your car doesn't run on petrol any more because you have started to call it "car juice" and that it is now more environmentally friendly as juice isn't a fossil fuel.
You have continually assumed that the purpose of pointing out the limitations of science or the continued relevance of philosophy is to "protect" religion or "protect" philosophy from scrutiny or some other negative motivational factor. Do you think Einstein is doing that too? Or do you accept there are rational and good faith reasons to make the points I have been making?
Acknowledging that there are limitations to the scope, methods and accuracy of the sciences is not "anti-science" or "pro-religion/obscurantist philosophy", it is a statement of basic fact. To ignore it would be irrational and highly unscientific indeed.
Would you agree that the answer to the questions regarding what these limitations are, what differentiates science from "not science", what assumptions underpin our scientific methods etc. can not be answered without recourse to philosophy?