If legitimate philosophers did so little, why would scientists even need them?

As foils. If philosophers didn’t try so hard, and fail, to add anything to science, the scientists wouldn’t know that the philosophers had so little to add. Every scientist knows that there are no “failed” experiments, just proof of null hypotheses. (I’m not putting philosophy down. I love philosophy, or at least some of it. But I believe the word “philosophy” is etymologically self-aggrandizing. Philosophers do not love knowledge; they love thinking.)

The critique of neoclassical economics in the article seems to me a bit facile. There are fools of every persuasion, including free-market wack jobs. But their errors can be fixed by a little game theory and a recognition that homo economicus maximizes what he values, not what we value. The principles of market economics are true de dicto; problems arise when economists make predictions de re. If we expand the system to include government intervention as a form of free-market collective bargaining — a boycott of agents who do what is declared illegal — the anti-capitalist’s “free market” disappears up its own butt. That is not a religious issue. Some people just can’t juggle enough balls.

I do appreciate the social utility of religion. We are not all equipped to accept John Nash as our savior. A moral God is far more accessible than the coordinator of an iterated multi-player Prisoners’ Dilemma, although the metaphoric implications of that particular bit of plus-sum game theory should not go unremarked.