Hermes, I agree, whenever another discipline comes into conflict with science the presumptiveadvantage is on science’s part, depending on the specifics of the case.But then you slip from “knowledge about the natural world” to “knowledge period.” That’s a mistake. Mathematics and logic are not sciences, and yet they produce knowledge. History is hardly a science, and yet it produces knowledge. Literary criticism is certainly not a science, and yet it produces knowledge (of literary texts and how to interpret them). And so on.Your statement that philosophers fail to agree on anything is empirically false. David Chalmers and colleagues have run several surveys of philosophers and their positions on a number of issues, and there is a remarkable degree of agreement, not necessarily on one answer, but on a very small set. Check them out. Also, you ignored my comment that that’s simply not how philosophy makes progress in the first place, and that insisting in using that conception of progress is scientistic.Belief may or may not be irrational, depending on the evidence that backs it up. Perhaps you meant faith? But I’m not talking about faith.I’m a realist (in the philosophical sense of the term), but let me play the game: how, exactly, would you empirically demonstrate the existence of physical reality?I agree that philosophy needs to build on the foundations of science. A lot of philosophers I know, not just Dennett and Churchland (not Churchill) do just that. I don’t know a lot of philosophers who discard science as a source knowledge, or indeed as the only reliable source of knowledge about the natural world.I don’t think a lot of scientists are demanding what you think they are demanding. Most scientists simply go on during their day without thinking about philosophy. Those who do are often interested. A few vocal ones take the extreme position you seem to be defending, and which I find to be a confrontational non-starter.