The philosophy of science is really, really simple. We assume that what we see is real, natural laws don’t change willy nilly through space and time, and your claims need to be falsifiable and testable.
We aren’t reliant on common sense in science. We are reliant on hypotheses and observable facts. The reason we have the scientific method is because common sense (i.e. human intuition) is often wrong.
Expert testimony should always be testable and checked against observable facts.
Or the Law of Nonctradiction or Excluded Middle isn’t actually a law.
Yes, it is a way for human psychology to understand reality, but it isn’t reality itself.
That’s largely an unfalsifiable position anyway because it would require complete knowledge of nature which appears to be beyond our ability. In much the same way, there is no way to rule out the supernatural. What we do see is quantum mechanics obeying mathematical laws which seems to lean more towards materialism.
Could you predict the interference pattern seen in the double slit experiment using electrons based on Aristotle’s work? No.
Could you predict the interference pattern seen in the double slit experiment using electrons based on the work of de Broglie and others? Absolutely.
Yes, my views on morality are based on rhetoric and semantics because it is subjective. Morality isn’t an objective part of reality like quantum mechanics is.
Added in edit:
Steven Weinberg’s (infamous physicist) “Against Philosophy” is a good read.
Physicists get so much help from subjective and often vague aesthetic judgments that it might be expected that we would be helped also by philosophy, out of which after all our science evolved. Can philosophy give us any guidance toward a final theory?
The value today of philosophy to physics seems to me to be something like the value of early nation-states to their peoples. It is only a small exaggeration to say that, until the introduction of the post office, the chief service of nation-states was to protect their peoples from other nation-states. The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists, but generally in a negative fashion—by protecting them from the preconceptions of other philosophers.
I do not want to draw the lesson here that physics is best done without preconceptions. At any one moment there are so many things that might be done, so many accepted principles that might be challenged, that without some guidance from our preconceptions one could do nothing at all. It is just that philosophical principles have not generally provided us with the right preconceptions. In our hunt for the final theory, physicists are more like hounds than hawks; we have become good at sniffing around on the ground for traces of the beauty we expect in the laws of nature, but we do not seem to be able to see the path to the truth from the heights of philosophy.