Yours is literally a philosophical question. You are doing philosophy. Surely you see the relevance and importance of your own question...
More to the point, most of what you hold dear is precisely philosophical in nature. Let us list but two, which I draw directly from your comment:
1. The value of putting a man on the moon
2. The superior (epistemological!) quality of scientific knowledge.
That last one bears repeating. The entire reason you think that you think science is better than philosophy is because of a philosophical stance. You are manifestly an empiricist, albeit one who does not understand empiricism and its rational context very well.
Respectfully, I leave you with the following quote by Gordan Fee:
Before you can say, ‘I disagree,’ you must be able to say, ‘I understand.’
It is axiomatic that before you level criticism you should be able to state
an author’s position in terms that he or she would find acceptable.
Your position betrays an ignorance of philosophy that would appall history's greatest scientists.
More to the point, most of what you hold dear is precisely philosophical in nature. Let us list but two, which I draw directly from your comment:
1. The value of putting a man on the moon
2. The superior (epistemological!) quality of scientific knowledge.
That last one bears repeating. The entire reason you think that you think science is better than philosophy is because of a philosophical stance. You are manifestly an empiricist, albeit one who does not understand empiricism and its rational context very well.
Respectfully, I leave you with the following quote by Gordan Fee:
Your position betrays an ignorance of philosophy that would appall history's greatest scientists.