Please forgive me if I take issue with your use of the word controlling.
A lesson from engineering, so it's my bias to use it as a source and as context -
What you don't measure you can't control. What you don't control you can't improve.
It's a form of concrete reasoning, yet philosophy has not always been concrete. It's my bias that the value in philosophy is the degree to which it can be applied. Noticing that I mentioned that the Master Mason degree is about moving beyond the concrete, which has some meaning other than concrete value.
One of the major separations of humans from our fellow animals is our amount of reason. Philosophy was developed to increase and improve our reason by applying tools and processes to it.
To me this distinctly different from science which seeks to arrive at "the one true answer" that it can then label as "Truth".
You went off the rails there. Philosophy, as it improves and increases the reason, teaches that there is no absolute truth in the concrete reasoning realm. As such any claim of absolute truth is an exit from reason. As such any claim of absolute truth is an exit from philosophy. Which is why in many ways to categorize fields of study religion is a sibling of philosophy not either a subset nor superset of philosophy.