The philosophies of science...

On the other hand, philosophy has provided and clarified scientific best practices and the appropriate methodologies for science in general and specific sciences in particular

Science began as, some might say, branches of philosophy, and then as they became more specialised and able to stand on their own feet, as it were, big a fond adieux to their parents. Yet it seems that the dialogue between scientists and philosophers continues as "Philosophy of Science."

In a few key moments, but in general science revises and critiques itself, and scientific techniques and methodologies are outgrowths of prior science, not new philosophy.

Not many scientists seem to participate in that dialogue, though. It seems from my point of view that philosophers engage in philosophy of science, but scientists do not. Scientists engage in a lot of commentary about science, including more practical things like ethics and bias and method, but not much philosophy of science per se, i.e. not much of the Kuhn- or Popper-like metascience.

Science being a niche philosophy has perhaps restricted the range of philosophy it needs in its investigative tool belt. For a scientist to proclaim that which is not observable, predictable and measureable, would quite possibly force them out of that niche.

Scientists engage in a lot of commentary about science, including more practical things like ethics and bias and method, but not much philosophy of science per se, i.e. not much of the Kuhn- or Popper-like metascience.

For a scientist to proclaim that which is not observable, predictable and measureable, would quite possibly force them out of that niche.

... so scientists have been taught; so scientists think ... for example, if a scientist happened to be given an education like the one I got, you would never learn that there was such a thing as "philosophy of science" except by dumb luck ... who says logical positivism is dead!!!