This is an interesting article, and I agree with you in principle. However, I have a few questions I hope you will answer.

But first, my thinking is this. Science and philosophy drive in two separate lanes. If a philosopher uses science to bolster his supposition, he had better understand the use and function of that science first. But to expect the philosopher to be equal in knowledge of said science seems too much of an ask. Also, if the roles were reversed, I would expect the same consideration from the scientist.

So my questions are: You stated your observation well, but you didn't say why your position matters unless I missed it. What is your position useful?

Secondly, assuming a philosopher takes your advice (say me, for example), what degree of knowledge about a specific area of science would you expect me to have before I am credible? What would satisfy you?

Thanks, and again, very good article.