I think those philosophers are out there, they're just being roundly ignored by everyone else, including (too often) by the scientists themselves.

I have a good friend who was maybe 80 percent of the way through a PhD in philosophy with a focus on the philosophy of physics.  He was at one of the top programs for study of such things, and was doing very well in it.  He quit, partly (but not entirely) because he realized that he would be spending the rest of his career writing papers that would be read by maybe five people.  In other words -- he'd be doing all this hard work to address "why" questions, but to what end, if those answers are never considered by anyone outside a narrow field of specialization?  He came to feel that there are better ways for him to deal with the "why" questions while not relegating those answers to abject obscurity. And that's a systemic problem -- not just a problem for this one guy.

In centuries past, it was possible for people to be "Renaissance Men" (or, less frequently then, women) who could be quite up-to-date and literate in the latest scientific advances, as well as the contemporary literary or artistic modes of expression -- these things were not seen as mutually exclusive, but on the contrary, advances in each were propelled and fueled by advances in the others.  Literature and art and philosophy -- especially philosophy -- have always been inspired or informed by technology and science, and in the past it was considered admirable for a person to be able to move back and forth between these "worlds" fluently.  That is no longer the case.  Now, too often, such people are viewed with suspicion from both "worlds."

We specialize now; science has advanced and expanded to the degree that even practicioners of one branch of the sciences can have trouble comprehending the latest research in another branch; artists and writers and philosophers (to the degree that we still have philosophers) are even less likely to try to do so (but, I want to emphasize, are not inherently unable to do so) and are more often finding their inspiration elsewhere; the people who deal with "why" questions for a living are increasingly alienated from those who deal with the question of "how," and vice versa.  I am not interested in whose fault this is, but I do wish that I saw more of a concerted effort to change it.

This is why I have a problem with these proponents of right-brain-left-brain theories, which have included some of my former schoolteachers, even one of the (otherwise) best and most inspirational teachers I've ever had.  As a student, I kept being presented over and over and over with this idea that I had to choose -- are you good at science and math, or are you good at writing and literature and history?  And the truth is, I have an aptitude for both, but this manner of approaching the world (and it is a manner of approaching the world, not just learning) imposed this artificial dilemma -- which am I?  It's not that I regret my choice, so much, it's that I regret the fact that I was told I had to choose, and believed it.

</rant>

Wow, uh, sorry for the diatribe.  Not sure where that came from.