disconnected?

on the way to work yesterday i heard stephen hawking on the bbc...he's flogging a new book that's gotten some attention because he says something to the effect that god isn't necessary to explain the universe...but that's not what i want to address...he also said that becaouse philosphers had not kept up with developments in physics and molecular biology their discussions about humans and their place in the universe are dated and disconnected...well...life still seems like a nietzschian struggle at times and steve seems a bit biased and a bit ungreatful...let's touch on a couple of scientific precepts...ockham's razor states, " entities are not to be multiplied unnecessarily." this has been reduced to the idea that the simplest explanation is usually the most correct and is a fundamental tenet of most scientists i know ( a limited sampling admittedly...but unanamous among them)...but willam of oakham was a fourteenth century monk writing a critique of scholasticism, not a scientist...a religious philosopher writing about theological issues...he didn't believe there were natural laws because god, in his omnipotence, could change them on a whim...a borrowed idea...which is okay...we all do it...but credit the philosphical source...scientists credit carl popper with the concept of falsifiability..holding that to be valid there must be some objective way to test the fact of an idea ( or hypothesis) in order to provide proof...okay again, but karl wasn't writing about science...he was writing about marxism, and for reasons opaque to me, freudian analysis...philosophers writing about political and social philosophy and expressing ideas well suited to science...seems to me that old steve is being a bit sloppy in his popularization of science.