Modern Philosophy and Science-envy

Looking back upon all we have read this semester, the theme of science is prevalent. Many of the moderns seem to have a sort of science-envy, and this may be for good reason. After the Renaissance, the natural sciences started making leaps and bounds in terms of inventions and discoveries. Looking around, philosophers noticed that the philosophy of the ancient and middle ages didn't do as much as they wanted it to do. On top of this, much of it seemed to be founded on something shaky. I will offer a short summary of the ways in which the moderns tried to emulate the natural scientists of the day. I will then briefly look at how this changed philosophy.

Starting with Bacon, many of the old ideas were out. The most important of these included knowledge for its own sake. Bacon wanted fruits. He wanted theories only insofar as they could produce tangible results which benefited man in a material way.
Descartes took from science a method. He insisted that we break things into their smallest parts. He also insisted that we not accept anything as true of which we are not evidently certain. With these in mind, Descartes is thinking of geometrical deduction.
Hobbes wanted to turn politics into a legitimate science. He started by taking the first few chapters of his book and doing nothing but defining terms. Once he had defined everything necessary, he merely had to deduce the outcomes.
To be honest, I am not sure how Locke or Rousseau fit into this schema...
Hume, realizing that this scientific method based on experience could not support itself, proved that if we have nothing but experience to work with, the certain, universal, and scientific knowledge that everyone wanted was impossible.
In response to this, Kant found a way to save the sciences. He saved metaphysics by the only means possible--turning it too into a science.

As I said earlier, the reason that the moderns went in this direction was because of the unprecedented success of science. It seems to me that the character of philosophy is different post-Kant than it was pre-Bacon. The Ancients, although extremely worried about truth, had more on their minds. Plato and Aristotle were looking for the beautiful and noble life and not just certainties. As someone like Dr. Anderson might say, they were looking for wisdom and not just true propositions. My question is (and it is a serious question): Are certainties as valuable as the moderns make them seem? What can we do with absolutely certain truths, and have we found any? If we accept Bacon's general hypothesis that we should seek after fruits, what has philosophy actually produced? Other than jobs I can't think of much.
Compared to Science, philosophy is an abysmal failure at producing fruits. Looking at contemporary analytic philosophy, one sees a lot of philosopher who do little more than stand over the shoulders of scientists and check their logic. Maybe this is good, but it is philosophy of a different type. But what does this mean? The first thing this indicates is that the goal of philosophy has not been unanimously decided upon. This is most clear today when one can go to Borders and can find books by Foucault, Ayer, and Joseph Owens all headed under philosophy. Although science and philosophy both look for "truth," what this means is different in each case. The moderns have directly pointed to the question "what is philosophy?" Modern philosophy is different than ancient and contemporary philosophy, because they all have different answers to this question. This semester has helped me think about this question in new ways. Although I don't yet have an answer, those of us studying philosophy in a post-modern and pluralistic world must answer this question in a way different than a man from ancient Greece or a man from 18th century Germany did.

P.S. It seems at once evident that even if one can answer this question, it is not as clear as that. What the moderns teach us about epistemology is important whether you accept it all or not. One cannot simply choose a philosophy and ignore the rest. A follow up question to "what is philosophy?" might be "What the hell is everyone else doing and in what way is it useful?" Because, even if others are wrong, they may still be on to something. Or as someone like Hegel might say, no one is completely wrong.