Reddit reviews Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time

>when asking "well how do we resolve these issues?" we don't look to philosophy, we look to science.

And what does science look to? Essentially philosophy. Whether the theories to be tested are developed by looking for symmetries, or using Occam's razor, or appealing to some implicit principle from epistemology or philosophy of logic, it all boils down to philosophy. Science isn't independent of philosophy. It is far better described as a subset of philosophy which deals with the management of observed data.

It's easy for those in physics who are dealing primarily with equations to lose track of how many philosophical assumptions are being made in their theories. In many cases they would really benefit from paying attention to what philosophers have to contribute. Physicists today are quite rigorous with the numbers but they are not at all rigorous in the most crucial element of science -- their interpretations. (Huw Price's book on time asymmetry is an example of something that physicist's should be paying attention to as it very clearly points out logical contradictions and double standards being employed in the discussion of time by top physicists.)

I think right now the problem is that there are too many people in philosophy chiming in on things in physics with completely wrong statements when they don't have the background knowledge in the field to realize how poorly they've understand what is going on. We're seeing a similar thing happening in the other direction with well known physicists (like Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss) who know next to nothing about metaphysics making utterly inane philosophical claims.