Like the blog at Science Musings, I too am "befuddled by post modern philosophy. Modernist philosophy requires such an effort of interpretation that the effort can yield little in cost-benefit terms. Foucault, Derrida et al are obscure in a way that Russel, Kant, and Wittgenstein are not. However it's important that we don't reject, say, Foucault's work, just because of its apparent lack of clarity. His historical analyses for example are enticing and penetrating if you can put aside his anti-humanist and relativist undertones.

Neither am I willing to  set up "science" as the only way to interpret the world, despite the great success of the "scientific method". At its limits, such as string theory and cosmology, science too is befuddling.

Each, in Kantian terms, is a form of sensibility. With science, the aim is clear(ish). With philosophy, the aim is more abstract. The interesting debate is what happens at their intersects, as science starts to reach the limits of what is explainable under a pure scientific method, and has to have recourse to philosophical methods.