That's sort of the scientism I'm talking about, though, isn't it? Philosophy isn't just the study of language and ideas. It's the formation of an intellectually responsible worldview that puts everything together, including scientific knowledge and human aims. That's why there's a philosophy of science, in which philosophers study scientific theories from a philosophical perspective.
Whether science will explain everything depends on what you mean by "explain." Yes, that's a point about language and concepts, but in some of my writings I've pointed out the difference between measuring and tracking changes with objectifications, on the one hand, and understanding them in an intuitive way, on the other. It's possible to objectify everything with a view to controlling nature, without that type of empowering explanation adding much to our understanding of what nature is. That's where philosophy, art, and perhaps religion will enter to complete the scientific picture, to grapple with nature's counterintuitive alienness or inhumanity.
By the way, this Monday I have a fuller recap of Tyson's scientistic record coming out.
