IMO, one of the best ways to make something abstract clear is to used examples.
So, what would you have scientists do differently? The more concrete, the better. Thanks
Learn realist philosophy, because naturalistic science presupposes a realist worldview like Aristotle's and Aquinas'. Errors in methodology and objectives can occur when scientists don't understand the principles upon which their endeavors are based.
For example, a doctor, in order to be consistent with the principles upon which his science is based, would have to categorize "the pill" as a poison rather than as a medication. Why? Because the object of medicine is the restoration of the body's proper operation. Since pregnancy represents a state of health, "the pill" represents a poison, since it interfere's with the body's proper operation.
Certainly, medications may be dispensed which carry with them serious side effects. But doctors dispense them with the goal of restoring the body to a greater overall state of health. Such is not the case with "the pill."
The implications for the dismemberment of and experimentation on human beings in early stages of development are more obvious, and of even greater importance.
Another example of a case where science would benefit from a proper understanding of philosophy is the field of "artificial intelligence," since the act of understanding in human beings is fundamentally spiritual. A machine cannot in principle understand anything.