> But many scientific models are based around philosophical theses.

Not really? Philosophy of science certainly informs science, but it's still philosophy.

> In sociology for example, the ground concept for the tragedy of the commons to work , is the assumption that humans rather act in the way that they have the most individual utility, rather than acting in a way that makes everyone benefit from it.

Economics is not really sociology, but nonetheless utilitarianism is just a constraint you put inside a game theoretical model. Whether that applies to the real world in a given situation is a totally different thing.

> What is beneficiary for the collective is always better for the individual (pareto optimum).

The principle you are talking about is enlightened self-interest.

Pareto efficiency can totally mean "less" for a given single individual (and again, it's just a super handy tool for theory.. there are no imperatives in science)

> This entire theory though is an excerpt of reality that ignores its causes and consequences, it is based around metaphysics.

Ethics is metaphysics, by all means.

> Philosphy itself may not be scientific, but it influences sciences a lot.

Nothing to add there (except perhaps that there's still too little of it).

But put aside the criticism specific to that particular video. Even if it's buried inside a wall of text (and that's the recap) dialectics in this sense is just a disingenuous way to claim a win by dispensing with logic.