It is apparent to me that we have diametrically opposing philosophical differences of opinion ...
Yes.
It is not possible to do science without a philosophy of science.
The philosophy of science need not be explicitly noticed or stated, but it is present everywhere in what one takes to be evidence, proof, authority, and value.
Science, as such, is not an object of science. You can't see, hear, taste, touch, or smell it. It is not composed of matter-energy and is not located anywhere in the space-time continuum. It is not subject to empirical observation, nor can it be tested in controlled experiments conducted by physicists, biologists, or chemists.
Yes, there are social "sciences" that claim to study science scientifically, but that claim is indicative of their philosophy of science. They are sciences in the Aristotelian tradition, but so, of course, is theology an Aristotelian science. Banning theology from rational discourse is part of the philosophy of science that seems to be dominant at present; whatever counts against treating theology as a science also counts against psychology, sociology, history, and literature.