is science or philosophy better at solving problems and improving society

As I have stated in my comment previously the scientific method was an invention of humans that was based on the field of science. This method since its early adoption in the renaissance, as I see it, is the largest contributing factor to the advancement of our species. This method goes. ..1) Ask a question 2) Do background research 3) construct a hypothesis 4) Test with an experiment 5)if procedure is not working then troubleshoot procedure and carefully check all steps and set-ups then return to step 4. If procedure is working than 6) Analyse data and draw conlusion. If results do not align with hypothesis than experimental data becomes background research for new/future projects. Ask new question for new hypothesis, and experiment again. If results do align with hypothesis than 7) Communicate resaults. This method is how science solves problems. Science most importantly uses evidence gained from observation and experiment while philosophy as I see it is more of intellextual thought that does not require evidence and therefor is ultimately hit or miss. My opponet made the case that philosophy can do what science cannot by making decisions that are moral, and that is what the problem is. Now before you jump to extemes let me explain that statement. Morals should be used for three things. Being able to live with other people, other peolple being able to live with you and you being able to live with yourself. Morals however should not be used for making decisions outside of ones personal life. Thats becasue when we all use our morals to try and solve todays large problems we don't all get the same answer. My opponent used the example of Utilitarian philosophy. A government should make decisions that benifit the most people empiracaly; however that isn't happening. Not when there are one billion people in life threatning poverty, and every life support system one the planet is in decline. The decision of how to benifit the most people cannot be made with morals and philosophy because then there will be a large number of groups and institutions that have very different ideas of what that decision should be, like it is today. On the other hand, science can solve this problem because we do have the resources on this planet to provide for every human alive today if we can manage them responsably, and we have the technology to power it all cleanly. We have the technical means to acomplish these things, so why I ask does this not happen. What I see is that hyperpluralism prevents us from implenenting the methods of science into our society. there are two many groups and institutions that are trying to promot there morals and philosophy so they can achiieve there goals, and this prevents us from getting the right answers. Philosophy in many ways will collaps onto itself becasue when its implemented on a large scale it doesn't work. As for the idea that philosophy "is the fondation for all scientific explorations and discoveries, including the scientific method" I disagree with my opponent. Science is its own field and was not invented by humans but discovered. the scientific method is also based on this field and is not at all associated with philosophy. A quote from the great book 1984 illistrates this best "phillosophy can make 2+2=5, but when building a gun or a part for a plane it has to equal 4" As i've stated I see philosphy as intellectual though that does not require evidence and so it is indeed an invention of humans. Science is something that is reletive to the highest advancment that exist and as it is used more that advancment increases causing exponential growth. We all learned how to solve problems in the fourth grade when we were taught the scientific method and it is no less viable today.