An interesting read, but I completely disagree with the conclusion.

“Is one better then the other" is not a well defined question.

As the article goes — philosophy came to be in order to explain the phenomena we see around us.

So a better defined question would be “is one better then the other at explaining what’s going on?”. And here the scientific is winning tremendously.

You shift to another question as if it was the same: ”is one better then the other in making us happy?”

I tend to agree it’s a much more important question, and one much harder to answer, but if so — the setup should have been towards that question.