Indeed, the question of the conflict between philosophy and science, or of the irrelevance of philosophy compared to science might be philosophical rather than scientific. When scientists suspect that philosophers are fooling themselves, they're effectively thinking philosophically.

That's why this article I wrote belongs in a philosophy publication rather than a scientific or engineering one, so that's where I posted it.

But to your point: although philosophers and scientists operate at different levels of analysis and interpretation, the topics of naturalistic philosophers surely overlap with those of scientists and engineers. Naturalistic philosophers are explicitly concerned with making their analyses and speculations consistent with scientific theories. The question, then, is whether even that philosophical work is useless or beside the point of scientific progress.