Does science depend on philosophy, or vice versa? What does it mean that philosophers are taking the role of theoretical scientists? Thanks.

I suppose I don't think philosophy (in general) depends on science, nor does it seem plausible that science depends on philosophy. With respect to the former--it's hard to see how science could possibly help very much with a range of philosophical issues (e.g., vagueness, the nature of modality, the metaphysics of mathematical entities or musical works). And it's also hard to see how science (in general) could depend on philosophy. What would that amount to? Scientific investigation doesn't seem as if it has to wait on (or for) philosophical approval. But this doesn't mean the two don't have anything to do with one another. Much of the most interesting recent philosophy (at least the philosophy that interests me) is profoundly influenced and inspired by science--it looks to science for data to be accommodated, it is inspired by scientific theorizing (i.e., it is explanatory rather than analytic), and it holds consistency with our best scientific theories to be one of the most important criteria...