Has science replaced philosophy?

answers1: i am not sure if you have read this but i sort of found it
interesting but the language was hard to understand <br>
<br>
whny my english improves i will give it a try <br>
<br>
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/09/science-philosophy-debate-julian-baggini-lawrence-krauss
answers2: Why must one replace the other? Each has merit; each has its
place. Both are needed to do what the other cannot.
answers3: disagree it is alive in our heats
answers4: No. Science is really Applied Philosophy and there are
places it's application can't touch. <br>
<br>
Science rests upon the assumption that there is a Universe outside of
ourselves to be studied, an assumption borrowed from Philosophy, an
assumption that can't ever be established by Science itself. <br>
<br>
Science is also not very good at things like 'Meaning' in relation to
Language and similar things. Meaning shifts too quickly and the data
involved, language itself, is too widespread, almost omnipresent.
<br>
<br>
Philosophers have, on the other hand, shown a great deal of brilliance
in the area of language. Writing texts, some very recently, that have
greatly changed the way a large number of academic subjects operate
(History, Psychology, Geography, Sociology, Linguistics, Translation
Studies, Literature, and Law to name but a few).
answers5: Stephen Hawking said it because he complained about
philosophy not writing about physics. He thinks that philosophy is
exclusively about physics obviously. <br>
<br>
Similarly as you, obviously.