Philosophy of science is philosophy, not science. Kuhn, Lakatos, etc, however, muddied the waters a bit by introducing the notion (at least implicitly) that phi

Philosophy of science is philosophy, not science. Kuhn, Lakatos, etc, however, muddied the waters a bit by introducing the notion (at least implicitly) that philosophy of science should consider how science is actually practiced, which looks like a scientific approach to me. I think science and philosophy of science would both improve if there was less separation between the fields. Many, if not most, practicing scientists have a Doctorate of Philosophy in a scientific field, yet none of the graduate programs that I'm aware of require a single course in philosophy of science. Equally problematic, I'm not sure how many philosophers of science have actually taken the time to empirically discover anything.