Philo vs. Mechanical Arts

In the preface of the Great Instauration, Bacon voices his disgust with the progression (or lack thereof) of philosophy. Ironically enough, in a volume entitled "Selected Philosophical Works," Bacon argues that every new philosopher makes no significant contributions to the field. He says that they conform unquestioningly to set precedents, create a new -yet still faulty- philosophy, or are so busy discussing abstract ideas that they never even come to a conclusion. In contrast, he praises the mechanical arts, which he says "are continually growing and becoming more perfect." Because these arts have a physical aim, he says, their progress is tangible.

Is it really fair to compare the evolution of philosophy and the mechanical arts by using the same standard, however? Perhaps it is simply the nature of philosophy to be ambiguous. In the mechanical sciences, ambiguity would be seen as a flaw, whereas in philosphy this element nearly defines most inquiries and, indeed, the subject matter of philosophy itself. Yes, philosophical theories are varied and often eccentric, but could they be any other way?