The scientists' positions are more aloof. Besides, they also have very rigorous ways of testing positions and reaching a consensus. For philosophers, there are only arguments. So things tend to tilt towards sound and fury. As well, I think philosophers tend to start off with a world-view and are somewhat closed to data that go against this view.
Scientists have a more open view about the world.
They know that their theories are, to an extent, ad hoc and experimental data may result in radical changes to held beliefs. Maybe philosophy needs to detach positions from persons. I am not saying that all philosophy needs is a spot of science to make it more civilised. Maybe it will result in things getting bloodier. But, as you pointed out, things definitely are different in the sciences.