In my limited experience with science, and the greater experience of those I have communicated with, the philosophy of science has absolutely no relevance to the practical prosecution of science in the field or lab.
It's quite a mistake to refer to or suggest that the philosophy of science represents some kind of "underpinning" or foundation of science; the reverse is true. Philosophers of science do not establish the rules of science for scientists, but rather, they attempt to describe the process of scientific reasoning as employed by scientists.
For instance; I'm currently involved, in an assistant aspect, in certain research on the effecacy of certain transgenic hybrid corns in preventing damage by certain corn pest insects. In the course of these experiments, we:
1) Planted corn;
2) Infested the roots with insect eggs;
3) Erected enclosing tents over the corn plants;
4) Collected insects from the tents at regular intervals;
5) Counted, keyed, and sexed the insects after collection.
At no point has the "philosophy of science", nor the work of any philosopher, been relevant to the prosecution of any of these endeavors. Science is what scientists do, not what philosophers talk about. It is physical evidence that holds primacy in science, not logic chopping.