While I understand your point, and tend to agree with it for my own personal purposes, there are entire branches of science where progress is made on a daily basis without any direct (or even indirect) consideration of philosophical issues. As I said above, I agree that our understanding of the scientific method relies on philosophy. This becomes particularly important at the frontiers of science, because in such areas the distinction between data and interpretation can become quite blurry. However the application of the scientific method, which has been going on for millenia in one form or another, does not.Yes but Einsteins objection to QM was essentially philosophical in nature. He could not accept the loss of determinism. You cannot do science without addressing complex epistemological and ontological questions. Look at string theory and the objections to it for example.
Separating science from philosophy is like separating the sound from the music. Without the sound there is no music. Without the music the sound is just noise.