There are various philosophers of science who all offer a different theory about how the sciences proceed.
The most naive one is the theory that we make observations, build a theory and then again make observations to see if it corresponds to the facts.
Then there are somewhat mote advanced theories of philosophers of science like "Sir" Karl Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos. etc. They all construct their theories from the comfort of their working room behind a typewriter or computer.
There are luckily more experiment philosophies, like the ones of Hacking, Radder (The Material Realization of Science), or Pickering ("Constructing Quarks").
But these still are written from the perspective of a philosopher. They didn't do actual antropological fieldwork examining scientists.
Are there examples of this kind of fieldwork where the scientists are actually approached and interviewed about their belives and practices (like is done in examining so-called primitive tribes)? And doing so refute the theories put forth by the philosophers of science?
I am not arguing agaist philosophy, only against philosophers of science who like the sciences to conform to their view. However sophisticated their theories are they can always be confronted with the facts. Only Feyerabend was aware of this. Obviously the other philosophers (or at least the ones I mentioned) are afraid for this to happen. Their dream castles could be razed down to the ground...
I can see there are two votes to close on the basis that this question is off topic. Why it is off topic? It is about philosophies of science. If this question is off topic then also the philosophies themselves are. I just philosophize about these philosophies.