Does he think philosophy is different from science in a good or bad sense, like one is better than the other, or that they are just different methods each worthy in their own way?

 In my openion, philosophy that cannot be isolated from science, whether science, science or humanitarian, an old world was a philosopher and at the same time scientific.

But in the present time, the scientist of one science and the philosopher can find both isolated from the other.

Philosophy is based on the logic of our truth, and logic is the basic method of science because we start from our brain.

Explanation:

For me, philosophy is word and science action, philosophy awakens the interest of science among ordinary people, which arouses curiosity about knowledge and leads to a way of new discoveries and inventions.

There are three points;

1. To be a decent philosopher today, you need to have studied physics (and math) to understand in detail how reason works. For me, Michael Frayn (especially his play "Copenhagen" and his book "The Human Touch") is a good example. Godel's incompleteness theorems fundamentally limit what can be proven.

2 Science is always philosophical, regardless of whether the scientist is aware of it or not. Issam noted in his comment that "all scientists with a broad perspective" are generally aware of their philosophical requirements.

3. That is the difficult question. At the moment it seems to me that scientists and philosophers generally ignore each other with honorable exceptions (like Frayn or Roger Penrose). Many scientists print with popular books that have little understanding of philosophical questions and little understanding of the history of ideas. In some prominent cases, their philosophical opinions are ridiculously poorly informed. Would there be an "ever deeper interaction"!

the answer is 'b' because the word 'attack' is a violent verb