Snow noted a growing divide between "the two cultures" in Western society, scientists and "literary intellectuals", who became increasingly self-absorbed and incomprehensible to each other. One of philosophy's traditional roles was providing a unified picture of the world and person's place in it. In this case however philosophy itself split along the same fault line into analytic and continental parts. Michael Friedman in A Parting of the Ways traces the split to an exchange between Carnap and Heidegger in 1930-s. Carnap called metaphysics a collection of "meaningless pseudo-sentences" and Heidegger responded in kind by characterizing methodology of science as "conclusive degeneration of logic into logistic". More recently, there were equally "productive" exchanges between Derrida and some leading physicists, who puzzled over and/or mocked his writings.
Snow himself attributed the divide to the flaws of British education system, but it seems to be too deep, lasting and pervasive for that. Are there philosophical investigations into this divide, its root causes, consequences and implications for the role of philosophy? Is it just a social backlash against the increasing influence of science, or is there something in the nature of intellectual discourse itself that forces such a split at some point? Are there philosophical figures/schools of thought that try to bridge it and on what grounds? Are there signs of emerging synthesis or will it grow deeper?
EDIT: Isn't there common ground even on methodology? Creative side of science, that is creation of new conjectures, models and theories by a scientist, is still very poorly understood. It is commonly referred to as "more art than science". Proofs in mathematics rarely reveal how they are arrived at, and Einstein did not deduce relativity from experiments alone. In mathematics there was some work on heuristics by Polya elaborated on philosophically by Lakatos, but there isn't much of that. Continental philosophy, on the other hand, naturally focuses on creation and discovery, but after Husserl there was little willingness to cross over, or even to make yourself understandable to the other side (Derrida for example). Why? Similarly, there are analytic and empirical aspects to the work of an artist, and especially a writer, that are more science than art. The intellectual processes at work seem to have the same underlying structure, but with different emphases on different aspects. Isn't that a natural subject for philosophy?
EDIT 2: Here is Friedman's diagnosis of the philosophical split.
"It is no longer possible, in particular, to view pure formal logic, as the most clearly and uncontroversially universal form of human thinking... We can either, with Carnap, hold fast to formal logic as the ideal of universal validity and confine ourselves, accordingly, to the philosophy of the mathematical exact sciences, or we can, with Heidegger, cut ourselves off from logic and "exact thinking" generally, with the result that we ultimately renounce the ideal of truly universal validity itself. If I am not mistaken, it is precisely this dilemma that lies at the heart of the twentieth-century opposition between "analytic" and "continental" philosophical traditions... But the thoroughgoing intellectual estrangement of these two traditions, their almost total lack of mutual comprehension, is a product of the National Socialist seizure of power in 1933 and the resulting intellectual migration."
He then suggests Cassirer as a starting point for reconciliation, the only major philosopher who wrote treatises on both mythical thought and general relativity.