Locke has been widely hailed for providing an epistemological foundation for the experimental science of his day, articulating the new, probabilistic form of knowledge appropriate to it. But while he is in important respects a devotee of that new science, there are also significant tensions in his thought. He stands behind its experimental methods as he targets the earlier, speculative or rationalist philosophies, for methodologies and epistemological expectations unsuited to natural philosophy. He also frequently appears to embrace the new science’s corpuscular hypothesis, whose powers and minute particles figure prominently in his attempt to understand why we cannot hope for demonstrative certainty about natural phenomena. Yet the new science’s methodology was evolving. Just how far did Locke travel with that evolution, and what aspects of his thought prevented him from going further? As for the corpuscular hypothesis, what exactly was his stance toward it? He frequently speaks of particles and powers as if they belonged to established knowledge, and yet in explaining the hypothesis’ flaws, he seems to consider them fatal.

It is a combination of epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, ethics, sociology (philosophy), as well as other fields of philosophy.

Empirism and positivism are still strong/ dominant.

Big data perhaps as pseudo science is arguing correlation is epistemologically enough.

Strong naturalism or physicalism - natural science still dominates over social science.

Strong post modern influence.

Strong individualism - strong focus on the individual.

Strong materialism. Most things seen as physical only.

A combination of liberal/ conservative/ populist. Popular topics with little divergence from status quo and limited crossing boundaries/ challenging paradigms.

We must differentiate between "philosophy" and "academic philosophy"; the latter has very little in common with this world. It hardly says anything relevant to anybody except to academic (professional) philosophy. I said more about this in my book "On People and Machines" (Ch. 1. On concepts and masters). But as you say, people seldom read books nowadays.

I graduated computer science and I am a professor of information science. I hold (and argue in my books) that information technology has strongly changed people and society. What is good, is communication; what is very bad is that technology transformed people to robots who learn and perform all sorts of procedures (algorithms) their entire life. I consider such life rather poor.

Regarding my criticism of academic philosophers, let me quote a paragraph from my book I mentioned above:

1.43 - Popper was one of the rare academic philosophers who dealt with practical issues, and who criticized his professional colleagues for not dealing with such issues. It may be that he slightly exaggerated sometimes, but he was basically right. He says that "professional philosophy has not done too well" and that "it is in urgent need of an apologia pro vita sua, of a defence of its existence" (1992, 174). This is an important claim, which should be discussed openly and honestly. The problem is, what can the present-day academic philosophy offer as its "apology". Not much, I am afraid. To make philosophy relevant for the present-day world, philosophers must stop talking about themselves and who said what, and take a look at the world around them. They should ignore charlatans who use murky language to cover up the fact that they do not have anything relevant to say.

In Industry 4.0, the Philosophic discussion was in Labor theory ( Thomas Piketty), Technology and IA Ethics ( https://www.mqup.ca/end-of-ethics-in-a-technological-society--the-products-9780773533363.php ) and Hans Jonas. For the philosophy of science, discussion was if this are or not a new paradigma in Kuhn theory.

Galileo, who invented science, was saying to his colleagues: forget your speculative "theories" and look the world around you! This is what I have been saying to my friends philosophers. Thinkers of his time tried to burn Galileo alive; they did not managed to do this, because his family had strong ties with Church (pope), but they burned others.

Let me add one more paragraph from my book:

Watching the opening ceremony of the Olympic games in Beijing (2008), I was impressed by the fact that billions of people around the world were watching the same event directly, as it was taking place. Protagonists of the opening ceremony were recording the event, sending images and communicating with people around the world by means of their mobile devices. This was a great orgy of communication indeed. A month earlier, I got a large anthology of texts in philosophy of technology; the book was on my desk while I was watching the opening ceremony. Pundits described this large book as "far superior" to other books in the field of philosophy of technology, and as "extraordinary useful". However, I did not find any text about communication in that large anthology; in fact, I did not find anything particularly interesting about anything I consider relevant.

The majority of philosophers believes that philosophy is in a terrible state, and that most other philosophers are charlatans. That is perhaps the oldest philosophical tradition...

Philosophy does not need to be in a terrible state. But the contemporary (academic) philosophy should not seek all the wisdom in the past. The three dominant names in a book on the Philosophy of technology I read were Plato, Marx and Heidegger; this is not good. Philosophy should deal with issues of the contemporary reality. It should seek a new poetics of existence, as I love to say. This is a very demanding task, but one should at least try to do something in this regard.

Noam Chomsky's 2019 contributions are field-studies on this topic, and distinguishes a qualitative-order to all the PhDs and above, of propagation to distorted philosophies and how they are to recover. Still, like all others in the actual branch-sciences, he has the upmost respect for academic principles of freedom to valid-empirical research. But some of the positions taken by factions who do not in fact belong to these branches, function to create plain philosophical confusion, and ignore empiricism of science, let alone James' impeccable radical-empiricism as core gauge of science progress. This conceptual-introspection is the technology of science (none else).

I think it is very important to take on board the Bernard Lonergan's theory of insight to see how philosophy is shaping any technological changes that we have today and the future