How would you discuss and constructively criticize the scientific method itself without philosophy? Philosophy is a superset of science and while it is less con

How would you discuss and constructively criticize the scientific method itself without philosophy? Philosophy is a superset of science and while it is less constrained overall, I wouldn't say it is useless. You say philosophy has a failure to provide a "well build abstraction as well as exploration guidance" but how would that work? Philosophy is a large subject area, but I'll take the liberty to say it isn't required to be straight forward with concrete answers, more so to provoke thinking about what makes something straight forward and concrete.