To their delight or dismay, students new to philosophy quickly learn that the puzzle is paramount in philosophy. Solutions--always many, usually complicated--matter less than the intriguing, confounding puzzles spawning them.
Engineers seek solutions, puzzles mostly annoy. And for scientists?
3 Quarks Daily has an article, "In Praise of Fallibility: Why Science Needs Philosophy", which argues against dogmatism in science and for the extraordinary, if discomfiting, value of the anomalous in scientific inquiry.
The journal Nature has an article describing attempts to broaden graduate training in the sciences--to put 'philosophy' front and center in attaining the 'PhD'.