Some interesting responses here. Surprisingly balanced. On some fora of my experience, most contributors would now be frothing at the mouth!
But this particular response requires ... balance, IMO.
Science is a tool that grew out of certain philosophical disciplines, analytic philosophy, and the like. That's the history. It's now so long since science grew up and left home that it's emerged in its own right. The difference between science and its parent is that science is a tool, honed to deliver maximum performance with very specific problems. In context, the easiest problems. The ones for which there is sufficient evidence for a properly scientific treatment, and such like. If you have such a problem, science is the tool of preference. For other problems, philosophy is your only choice. Science is a stilletto, and philosophy is a Swiss Army knife. If you need to stab someone, you will not find a better tool than science, however hard you search. But if your problem is more general, science probably won't do. I think this is the difference between them?