Wow. Philosophy really has added so much to the world that you people seem to have blinded yourself towards: Scientific method, traced back to Aristotle, or Charles Peirce. Both well known and respected philosophers. B.F. Skinner's behaviorism research which was pivotal within psychology; also a respected philosopher. I really can keep going on and on, but it doesn't seem necessary.
Philosophers have been responsible for turning heads in new directions, as opposed to just those logically connected to an idea. Those arguments which call philosophy not well thought out or baseless are looking at these novel ideas as baseless without some body of evidence to back them up. Treating the philosopher's ideas a hypothesis rather than their declaration of fact should satisfy some comments based around how they can be worthwhile. Try writing a 200 page book describing a large-scale system in exact detail which covers all loose ends, and I think you'll run into the same issues with vague-ness and seeming leaps in logic.
Half of the interest in philosophy is the argument, the debate and defending and fleshing out one's ideas. To turn out something that's perfect really detracts from the evolution of ideas. At the very least, this training your mind how to overcome arguments and refining your ideas leads to people of stronger characters, sharper minds, and a more diverse set of interests than just the issue in front of them.
Sure game theory describes a way to get what you want based on the circumstances, but do they go into what virtues are, how ethics apply, or even how life is changed by what you're doing? The ideas may not be set in stone and clear as day, but they make people think about different ideas and offer more insight based on the research that people have done than just "aha, this protein does inhibit viruses." The synthesis of ideas and cross-application nowadays is where science is at. Sure they may get there eventually using cold hard facts and logic, but every once in a while, a baseless argument ties in pretty nicely and can advance a theory more quickly just by making people think a bit harder.
If you want to read what a real scientist has to say about the value that philosophy adds to science, I suggest "Dreams of Final Theory" by Steven Weinberg, chapter 7, "Against philosophy": http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf
Sure game theory describes a way to get what you want based on the circumstances, but do they go into what virtues are, how ethics apply, or even how life is changed by what you're doing? The ideas may not be set in stone and clear as day, but they make people think about different ideas and offer more insight based on the research that people have done than just "aha, this protein does inhibit viruses." The synthesis of ideas and cross-application nowadays is where science is at. Sure they may get there eventually using cold hard facts and logic, but every once in a while, a baseless argument ties in pretty nicely and can advance a theory more quickly just by making people think a bit harder.