Here you go.
Of interest to you?
...she argues, “The philosophy of science is not an afterthought or belated commentary on modern science.”
I believe her to be correct. There is, after all, a historical reason why adepts in the sciences are rewarded with the title "Doctors of Philosophy." Shakespeare wrote during a particularly interesting cusp in the transition from the astrological to the astronomical, the alchemical to the chemical. This isn't difficult to find; the terminology litters his text. Stuck between the late Renaissance and the early Enlightenment, the sort of conversation you could hear in an Elizabethan public house must have been astonishing in its vibrancy and variety. And Shakespeare the playwright, (whoever the historical man might have been), had an incredible ear and an uncanny facility for finding the universal aspects of mundane circumstances.
It seems to me that philosophers of science both modern and less so seem to have an idea of the workings of science that differs in subtle ways from those actually doing it. "Observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion" is a tidy mental model that is easily remembered and seldom entirely accurate. Here the philosophy of science is much more the former than the latter. It's something to ponder when the convictions of the speaker or writer overcome his or her actual experience in the field. It happens a lot.
The Tempest is not as famous as Macbeth, Othello, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, etc...
Along with the Merchant of Venice, the aforementioned have been made into phenomenal motion pictures.
I would love to see an adaptation of the Tempest in a professional modern motion picture.