Before the 19th century, science and philosophy (more specifically Natural Philosophy) were indistinguishable, because in the past you can be philosophers and scientists. In the past, they did works of scientists, even though they weren’t called scientists.
They weren't 'philosophers and scientists', natural philosophy is a branch of philosophy. They were philosophers. What we now call science is simply a continuation of natural philosophy and is based on certain philosophical assumptions that, amazingly, are also philosophy.
You seem to think that one day it magically became science and at that point all links to thousands of years of philosophy simply vanished (or that they had never been philosophy in the first place).
What happened is, over time, we started to use the term science for a particular branch of philosophy. That didn't stop it being a branch of philosophy, and it didn't stop numerous scientific questions being philosophical questions same as they always had been.
But today, philosophies are useless piece of craps, particularly modern metaphysics. And philosophers of today are nothing more than armchair windbags, providing nothing useful, and most of them are not scientists.
The main problem is you don't have the slightest clue what philosophy is, which is why you can't understand why you are so wrong. It's also probably why you keep on pluralising it as you mistake the discipline for specific doctrines (which you seem to associate with only things like post-modernism or whatever rather than those, like naturalism, that underpin the sciences)
If you just read the wiki you'd be exponentially better informed.
Philosophy - Wikipedia
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Questions regarding the foundations, methods, and implications of science
are philosophy. Questions regarding the validity of knowledge
are philosophy. Questions regarding how we should utilise imperfect information
are philosophy. Questions about how simple and complex domains differ and how this impacts scientific understanding
are philosophy.
Gnostic: philosophy is useless
Einstein:
I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.