If a philosopher of science studied contemporary scientists and judged "these practices common to this field tend to produce more accurate far-reaching knowledg

If a philosopher of science studied contemporary scientists and judged "these practices common to this field tend to produce more accurate far-reaching knowledge of the world, compared to these other practices accepted in this other field", and a few decades later we could judge that the philosopher was basically right, then I'd want more to read their work. They of course may have broader concerns.