The "love of wisdom/philosophy" alone doesn't design and build complex machinery, computers, satellites, rovers.....for that you need a method, and that method is called science.
No, that's technology and engineering. Science alone doesn't design or build complex machinery, any more than philosophy does.
Indeed, politicians and rulers are prone to undervalue science (just as you are undervaluing philosophy), where its applications in technology and engineering are not yet obvious; Which, of course, is when it is most likely to be game-changingly useful.
One reason that Germany lost WWII was that Hitler ordered the cessation of any research that was not expected to lead to practical military applications within a year; He felt that pure science was of little use in the immediate term, and should be put on hold until victory was secured. That
philosophical position cost his country its pre-war lead in military technology, as the Allies continued their basic science, leading to technologies that, perhaps surprisingly, had practical applications in the real world.
Japan faired even worse; Their philosophy of war was highly conservative, and their philosophy of government and military discipline, a microcosm of their sociological philosophy, led to an insistence that their setbacks later in the war, after a long period of remarkable success, was due to deviation from the earlier tactics and doctrines. The banzai charge with bayonet and sword had been psychologically terrifying to their enemies from 1938 through 1941, leading to astonishing successes, so their philosophy dictated that such tactics would still be effective between 1942 and 1945.
When an empirical approach would have shown that this tactic had ceased to work, the failure of Japanese Imperial philosophy to take an empirical stance meant that those in power could not admit it; Their philosophy was their downfall.
Meanwhile the allies held a philosophical position that despite (indeed because of) the need to win the war, basic research should go on.
Research intended to help metorologists track thunderstorms led to systems to track U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic.
Efforts to design a 'Death Ray' weapon (rightly derided as impossible), neverthless resulted in a technology to track aircraft that was critical in the Battle of Britain.
Some guys mucking about with bacterial growths on petri dishes led to the discovery of antibiotics, which were revolutionary both in military medicine during the war, and later in medicine more widely - there's little doubt that the ability to cure septic wounds made a huge difference to the effective strength of allied armies.
Of course, Hitler's mistake wasn't a scientific one; It was a
philosophical position, that (fortunately) was not shared by Churchill or FDR, both of whom continued to fund basic scientific research with no clear technological objective. That
philosophy helped win the war - a war that was characterised by a strong difference of
philosophical positions, making it one of the least morally ambiguous wars in human history.
Philosophy is fundamental to science, which is one of many branches of philosophy.
Science, a branch of philosophy, cannot lead to technology or engineering, without a philosophical decision to move in that direction; And the applications to which technologies are put are determined by such philosophical disciplines as ethics, logic, epistemology, and even aesthetics.
Technology depends on science (itself a branch of philosophy); Science depends on other branches of philosophy; Politics determines what technologies (and what scientific realms) are funded and put to use - and of course, politics is entirely about philosophy.
It's philosophy all the way down.
