These scientists in question have not rejected philosophy – they've said that they rejected philosophy. Perhaps they have avoided conscious engagement with academic philosophy. But their work depends on a lot of philosophical assumptions. One can choose to be conscious and aware of the philosophical assumptions one is using in one's work, or ignore them, or pay attention to them but decide not to call them "philosophy." But they are there, necessarily.

The confusion here arises because of the ambiguity in the word "philosophy." It can mean our views or assumptions which are not determined by the empirical observation, or it can mean the logical discussion of those assumptions, or it can mean the academic field focused on that discussion. A few scientists have remarked – I think with considerable ignorance – that they don't have any use for the academic field, or indeed that it is useless. However, they can't get around engagement with philosophy in at least the first sense. If they actually avoid asking hard questions about their assumptions and engaging them logically, then yes they are also avoiding philosophy in the second sense.

It is possible to work based on a set of assumptions chosen unreflectively that turn out to be effective in a particular area of work, and to succeed in part because you started with the right assumptions. But that's luck, not wisdom. And it doesn't even vindicate the applicability of those assumptions anywhere beyond the work you've done.

These scientists in question have not rejected philosophy – they've said that they rejected philosophy. Perhaps they have avoided conscious engagement with academic philosophy. But their work depends on a lot of philosophical assumptions. One can choose to be conscious and aware of the philosophical assumptions one is using in one's work, or ignore them, or pay attention to them but decide not to call them "philosophy." But they are there, necessarily.

The confusion here arises because of the ambiguity in the word "philosophy." It can mean:

1. our views or assumptions which are not determined by the empirical observation,

2. or the logical discussion of those assumptions,

3. or the academic field focused on that discussion.

A few scientists have remarked – I think with considerable ignorance – that they don't have any use for the academic field (3 above), or indeed that it is useless. However, they can't get around engagement with philosophy in at least sense 1. If they actually avoid asking hard questions about their assumptions and engaging them logically, then yes they are also avoiding philosophy in sense 2.

It is possible to work based on a set of assumptions chosen unreflectively that turn out to be effective in a particular area of work, and to succeed in part because you started with the right assumptions. But that's luck, not wisdom. And it doesn't even vindicate the applicability of those assumptions anywhere beyond the work you've done.