|So if a working scientist hypothesized that any action caused any result, the peer reviewer would ask him to philosophically justify his position?
No, because the underpinnings are assumed, you don't need to rehash it every time you have a new hypothisis or theory. Just as if I wrote an article on the Book of Job for a Christian journal, I wouldn't need to justify belief in God or the accuracy of the Bible. Science assumes certain philosophical facts, and it goes without needing to be repeated among actual scientists that every theory is just that - a theory that cannot be proven. That is a basic part of the scientific method. So the scientist would be expected to show that he has accounted for interpreting the data in an appropriate way. But he wouldn't be expected to explain the whole endeavor and limits of science. Every journal article would be a whole book, and a repetitive one too.
Very often a theory will finish by outlining what further work needs to be done to narrow down the possibilities, or better explain the data. Saying more than the data will support is a big no-no.
|No, no, no! Bad analogy. The philosophy of science comes logically prior to science itself. How science is conducted, and whether or not its truth claims can be justified, depend on the philosophy of science. You can't abdicate intellectual responsibility for justifying your beliefs because it's "not your field"!
But again, one does not have to do this every time a person makes a scientific statement. It would be nice if every person thought about this for him or herself at some point. It is especially important for scientists to think about this. But in so doing, they are not acting as scientists doing science. It IS NOT possible, within science, to make these justifications. Science only addresses a very specific set of problems, ones that can be measured and observed empirically. It does not possess the tools itself to address problems of philosophy, and experts in science, most of the time, are not experts in philosophy. Would you expect those who study ethics to spend all their time doing metaphysics because ethics depend on metaphysics? They would need a strong understanding of metaphysics, but they will likely spend most of their time doing ethics.
The discipline of science has a well discussed place within philosophy, it's strengths and limits are actually pretty well understood, there is a lot of literature, going back to the medieval period, about their relationship. But day to day, a scientist is not going to begin every thought with, well, I'll start with the assumption that the world we see is actually real...