Philosophy is not a science, to try to look at it as if it was science will generate mistakes.
Philosophy is what generates the method and science is the method, so Science is a child of Philosophy.
For example, nothing guarantees that the universe can be translated in mathematic equations, but at the same time we can deal with the concept of never achieving the truth, but getting close enough (and closer).

Anyway you still see in society many discussions that were already started ages ago like utilitarism versus deontology, or falascious arguments that can be busted easily by minimum logic knowledge.

It is difficult for non philosophers to gasp the state of the modern discussions, because they are there for thousands of years. The same way that if you try to explain quantum mechanics using the intuitive Newtonian physics will generate mistakes and problems that modern science already solved (but are not that intuitive). People think that citing a greek guy that lived 2500 years ago can end a discussion because his argument sounds intuitively logic. And they forget that there is 2500 years of arguments and logic building up over it and cannot be dismissed.

Most "dilemas" in modern society have already extensive bodies and treaties over it and what general public understand is the first 2 or 3 layers of those centuries of philosophers.

Same way as Darwin's works have a lot of errors, but the main idea was correct and the evolution as written by Darwin was corrected, expanded in a way that using his book to study it is just an introduction.

If science is about how everything happens, it's great. If it's about why, the meaning of life etc., it has nothing to offer and has left many people cold. Granted, many people feel there is no meaning, no why, but many others sense more is going on than meets the eye, or scientific inquiry, to put it another way.

We can’t take a single statement out of context and say for definite that he believed that across the board, This is the problem with picking and choosing quotes made by famous people ...without context they are sometimes misleading or even meaningless. Personally I believe that philosophy and science can still inform us, they are not mutually exclusive, nor are they contradictory.

Philosophy is recreational. Science can be backed up by facts.

In the past a lot of philosophy was concerned with the business of describing how the material world worked, as was religion. In those roles, certainly one philosophy, natural philosophy, which we now call science, superseded all the others, when it developed the scientific method, which set a higher and more objective standard of truth. But that still leaves huge areas, especially morality, in which the scientific method can not be used. Philosophy therefore is still very much needed.

Although it could be said that most of what needs to be stated, on subjects like morality, was said in the past by early philosophers and that therefore it is to a large degree, a done work. It also should be said that since the scientific method sets a higher standard of objective truth, then it is an obligation on the other philosophies to work within the discoveries of science.

I think Philosophy was the name of his electric wheelchair - maybe the battery was low.

Philosophy is akin to dreaming. Science is all about bringing dreams to reality.

Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” He said new theories “lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it”.

I think he has a point. In that context, I agree with that statement. This shouldn't be taken out of context, as "philosophy" is a vague and vast concept.

I think philosophy , like science has to change as new information becomes available, so we work with the best information possible.

Science is exploring the world that is, engineering is creating the world that never was. Philosophy is tourism.

IMO most philosophy is a complete waste of time. Why not debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, a hot topic in the Middle Ages, and actually leading to severe persecution of the "losing" side of the debate! (blasphemy!)

Hawking himself must have engaged in metaphysical speculation in connection with his scientific endeavors.

No, philosophy is not dead.

James Clerk Maxwell:

“It has been asserted that metaphysical speculation is a thing of the past, and that physical science has extirpated it. The discussion of the categories of existence, however, does not appear to be in danger of coming to an end in our time, and the exercise of speculation continues as fascinating to every fresh mind as it was in the days of Thales.”

Philosophy has nothing to do with Science..

Listened to ‘Philosophy Talk’ on NPR for years … those guys got nowhere … what a waste of time! Sure, it deals with ethics, morals ..and endless human nuances, but ‘proves’ nothing.

He was such a silly man in many respects, in actuality philosophy is very much alive where as he on the other hand . . . . . . . . .hmmmmm

The Greeks found them complementary bed fellows and there is no reason that I have seen to the contrary. Given the Enlightenment, The Age Of Reason, stood back, the scientific method still requires someone to say “What happens if...?”

As soon as we compartmentalise ideologies we lose so many opportunities by elitist thinking. Not the best way forward I would suggested

Ludwig Wittgenstein once proclaimed the death of philosophy and then spent the rest of his life philosophizing. He was really referring to the death of systemic philosophy as he claimed to have "solved" all important questions generally accepted in the world of philosophy. Of course, not all philosophers agree with Wittgenstein.
Hawking appears to be claiming something similar but from a scientific viewpoint, claiming that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe can not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. So, he had no use for philosophy as a discipline, as he also said, “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.” He had a point, though Daniel Dermont may be an exception, at least to an extent. Nevertheless, this does not mean that philosophizing is dead. Also, not all of philosophy deals with the nature of the Universe.

Hawking was speaking in the context of a search for physical truth and explanation at the Google's Zeitgeist conference

scientists rather than philosophers have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge

He said adding that in this sense ‘philosophy is dead’

That is not to say that there are a few areas where philosophy in the classical sense is still of use, metaphysics, ethics and a couple of others. especially critical thinking and logic.

It greatly depends upon whether the "philosopher" adheres to the scientific method.

When/where did Stephen Hawking said that? Any reference please?

Essential to philosophical enquiry is freedom of speech and the right to question beliefs in whatever form they take regardless of who endorsed them. We know that up until the Age of Enlightenment the state endorsed the views of the Catholic Church. Those who questioned the 'authority' of the Catholic Church were usually tortured and put to death.

I wonder to what extent scientism has replaced religion as a place of refuge in modern societies...…….

Philosophy enhances thought. Unless a board of philosophers hold the purse strings to funding scientific endeavors, it has no other influence.

As long as there is thought there is philosophy. Famously? Sounds like a typical statement of today...The sky is orange! I see no correlation between philosophy and science.

Philosophy is still alive and well! (Thankfully!)

Sometimes Stephen Hawkins was talking rubbish.

Neither