These debates are less about a clear and present problem, than a mode of inquiry asking to look again at something "familiar" in a different way.
For example, ancient Greek philosophers made many speculations about the nature of atoms, and in some ways their guesses were correct, but I don't think that speculation was especially fruitful. But their advances in geometry and number theory were tremendously productive.
In terms of finding the actual answer (at least to the extent that we know the answer), it probably wasn't; but, in terms of suggesting that the question was one that had an answer, I think it was enormously fruitful. Leon Lederman's wonderful book "The God particle" persuasively (if perhaps slightly tongue-in-cheek?) argues a very direct intellectual through-line from the Greek analyses to (then-)current particle physics.
(Having said this, my personal feeling is that philosophy has done its part by expanding the scope of scientific inquiry, but probably doesn't have much to add to modern-day scientific discourse; but, then again, I am a scientist, and so am pre-disposed to believe in the primacy and importance of my discipline.)
At least physically, this seems wrong to me. Temperature is an emergent property of systems—there is no such thing as the temperature of an isolated particle—whereas (as spectral analysis shows) even individual atoms have colour.