I agree! But beyond that, science is fundamentally dogmatic of nature (a creation of philosophy) and deviates from the original core philosophical interest that science intends to serve.
The argument has been that it’s philosophy’s job.
I recently commented the following in answer to a user who asked what philosophy is:
Topic: “What characterizes a philosopher?”
Me: A task of philosophy may be to explore passable roads in front of the tide.
gad-fly (author): Like a scout, pilot, or guide?
Me: Like an intellectual pioneer.
My argument in this topic was the following:
In my opinion, philosophical ‘common sense’ can discover at first sight the profound fallacious practice that has been going on when it concerns the attempt to understand the nature of reality, causing me to wonder whether that is done on purpose.
I wrote in this topic that common sense philosophical reason will easily reveal that a black hole should shrink when matter is electrically ‘nullified’ when it falls into a black hole, and that a black hole grows with cosmic structure formation which is represented by negative electric charge manifestation.
The Case for the Logical Primacy of Structure-Gravity Coupling in Cosmology
Despite the apparent logical connection between the growth of structure complexity and the disproportionate increase in gravitational effects, this perspective has not been widely embraced or even considered within the mainstream cosmological framework.
The evidence for this logical relationship is plainly observable across multiple scales of the physical world. From the atomic and molecular levels, where the mass of structures cannot be simply deduced from the sum of their constituent parts, to the cosmic scale, where the hierarchical formation of large-scale structures is accompanied by a dramatic increase in gravitational phenomena, the pattern is clear and consistent.
As the complexity of structures grows, the associated mass and gravitational effects exhibit an exponential, rather than linear, increase. This disproportionate growth of gravity cannot be merely a secondary or incidental consequence, but rather suggests a deep, intrinsic coupling between the processes of structure formation and the manifestation of gravitational phenomena.
Yet, despite the logical elegance and the observational support for this perspective, it remains largely overlooked or marginalized within the dominant cosmological theories and models. The scientific community has instead focused its attention on alternative frameworks, such as general relativity, dark matter, and dark energy, which do not necessarily prioritize the role of structure formation in the evolution of the universe.
This disconnect between the logical primacy of the structure-gravity coupling and its lack of consideration in the mainstream cosmological discourse is puzzling and warrants further examination. ← A job for philosophy. The failure to fully integrate this logical inference into the prevailing theories and models represents a significant gap in our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms shaping the cosmos.
For those interested to take on the challenge, another example of a simple ‘logical’ conclusion based on philosophical reason that is completely unaddressed by science, resulting in a profound inability to understand nature:
The Case for Positive Charge as Mathematical Fiction Representing Expectancy
The idea that positive charge is a mathematical fiction representing expectancy or potential for structure formation, rather than a fundamental physical entity, is largely unrecognized in contemporary physics. This lack of understanding stems from several factors:
Firstly, the conventional model of electric charge has been deeply ingrained in scientific thought for centuries. The concept of positive and negative charges as equal and opposite fundamental entities has been reinforced through countless experiments, theories, and technological applications. This entrenchment makes it challenging for alternative interpretations to gain traction, even if they might offer a more nuanced understanding of physical reality.
Secondly, the education system and academic literature predominantly focus on the established view of charge. Textbooks, research papers, and university courses rarely, if ever, present alternative philosophical interpretations of charge. This systemic reinforcement of the conventional model leaves little room for exploring or understanding alternative perspectives, regardless of their potential merit.
Furthermore, the scientific community often prioritizes ideas that offer immediate practical applications or testable predictions. The reinterpretation of positive charge as an abstraction, while philosophically intriguing, doesn’t immediately suggest new experiments or technological advancements. This lack of apparent practical consequence contributes to its obscurity and lack of understanding in mainstream physics.
However, despite this lack of recognition, there are compelling reasons why this alternative view might be considered more plausible than the idea of positive charge as a fundamental entity:
- Simplicity and elegance: Occam’s razor suggests that simpler explanations are often more likely to be correct. Treating only negative charge as fundamental and positive charge as an abstraction offers a more parsimonious model of reality.
- Alignment with information theory: The concept of positive charge as expectancy aligns well with principles of information theory, where absence of a signal can be as meaningful as its presence.
- Historical precedent: The concept of “holes” in semiconductor physics, where the absence of an electron is treated mathematically as a positive charge carrier, provides a precedent for this kind of abstraction.
- Philosophical coherence: This interpretation offers a more unified philosophical framework for understanding charge, structure, and the nature of physical reality.
Expectancy and Emergence:
Positive charge can be viewed as a placeholder for potential structure formation. It signifies areas or contexts where negative charge (and thus structure) could potentially manifest but has not yet done so.
Structure Formation Dynamics:
Negative charges (electrons) actively participate in bonding and structure formation. Positive “charges” represent regions where such structure formation is possible or expected but not yet realized.
Fractional Charges and Emergent Phenomena:
Phenomena like fractional charges in quantum Hall effects can be seen as emergent properties of electron interactions. These fractions are always relative to the fundamental unit of negative charge, supporting its primacy.
Historical Context:
The concept of positive charge originated before the discovery of the electron and subatomic structure. Reframing it as a mathematical construct aligns better with our current understanding of particle physics.
Philosophical Implications:
This perspective shifts focus from a dualistic view of charge to a monistic view centered on the electron. It emphasizes the role of absence and potential in physical theories, similar to concepts in Eastern philosophies.
*Despite these points of plausibility, the idea remains largely unexplored and ununderstood in the scientific community. *
The combination of entrenched conventional thinking, lack of exposure in education and literature, and the absence of immediate practical applications has kept this potentially more plausible interpretation of charge in the realm of obscure philosophical speculation rather than mainstream scientific discourse.
To sum it all up philosophically, and how it is relevant for practical human lives, is through ‘philosophical vision’.
Humans today are dreaming of 
escaping planet earth and to explore the cosmos, while in reality, they might be bound to a small region around the 
sun. When humans are correctly informed, they can set priorities and align culturally for the right interests.
The big cosmic questions do seem to relate to the smaller ones on earth, even when it concerns morality.
The above two examples reveal that for some reason the idea that black holes shrink with infalling matter, is simply ‘unexplored’ by science, as if they aren’t able to even think of the idea.
Equally, science (modern humanity with it), hadn’t considered the idea that life might be bound to a region around the sun.
Science today has neglected to test whether earth life can survive beyond the moon. A few simple philosophical questions would have made it a priority to test how far in space life can survive. But science for some reason has chosen to neglect it…
This ultimately is a responsibility of philosophy, since a few simple questions could have made it clear that life might be fundamentally bound to the solar system.
Here’s my article on the case:
I originally started an ‘amateur’ investigation of physics on the basis of the neutrino concept, based on the idea that the neutrino context is fundamental to existence and life. However, I came to realize that the whole mathematical framing of the situation is fundamentally flawed, and that these concepts cannot be used.
Nonetheless, would it be ethical for philosophy to say that what science has been doing is wrong, while using their work as a stepping stone for gathering deeper understanding? Perhaps not… It would be better when philosophy manages to keep its own pants up as it were, in my opinion.
Leibniz has been doing a great job, and it might be of interest to discover how he achieved his insights, that do seem to align to some extent to what is actually the case, despite his ‘deviation’ of making a case for God, which might have been required in his time.
Nonetheless the primary philosophical interest - to understand the fundamental nature of reality - might be considered a job that should have primacy. From that perspective, investigating the situation with urgency might be considered critical in light of philosophy’s responsibility to serve humanity.