It is like saying "Philosophers should care about biology or about some other domain X". If you look at the history of "Philosophy of sciences", most of them ca

It is like saying "Philosophers should care about biology or about some other domain X". If you look at the history of "Philosophy of sciences", most of them came from the object-level domains. In other words, many philosophers of sciences came trained from domains such as physics, etc. Pierre Duhem was a physicist. But he also contributed to philsophy of scineces: check the famoous Duhem-Quine thesis. Same thing happend to "philosophy of biology". If you look at the journal "philosphy of biology", most of the early contributors came from biology. I think, Scott Aaronson is aware of the controversy between Oded Goldreich and Neal Koblitz. This controversy could have been formulated better if people in theoretical computer scince had mastered "philosophy of sciences. People in Artificial Intelligence (esp of CS variety) make wild claims like AI annihilating the human race. And these voices have strong backing from people like Bill Gates. However, these voices don't look at what philosophers have writtern about AI, and the kind of nonsense AI folks spew. Yes, AI can solve particular tasks (a chess game, autonomous driving): but can it replace humans? Yes, say the AI group; No, say the philosopher Hubert Dreyfus. Check the latter's book: What computers can't do, a critique of artificial reason.