I try to strike a reasonable compromise between scientism and anti-science. I do not advocate doing science without philosophy, especially ethics.

I’m simply saying that the division of labor between science and philosophy culturally evolved for good reasons.

Science is good at discovering facts about the world and at understanding that world on the basis of theory.

Philosophy is good at a broader understanding of the interconnections between facts and values.

As for the destruction of the planet, science and technology provided the means, but we and our leaders did it because of our greed. That’s not a scientific problem, it’s a moral one.