when you get a Phd in science it stands for doctor of Philosophy.
If you use logic or reason then you are using philosophy.

Science is a particular methodology of empiricist natural philosophy.

Science is a particular methodology of empiricist natural philosophy — Kenosha Kid

I think it is quite controversial to place science within empiricism. In particular, it gives too much credit to the rather weak arguments made by empiricists as to how whatever it is that we sense becomes organized into more complex ideas. To quote MacIntyre in After Virtue:

The empiricist concept of experience... was intended as a device to close the gap between seems and is, between appearance and reality. It was to close this gap by making every experiencing subject a closed realm; there is to be nothing beyond my experience for me to compare my experience with, so that the contrast between seems to me and is in fact can never be formulated. ...

By contrast, natural scientific concepts of observation and experiment were intended to enlarge the distance between seems and is. The lenses of the telescope and microscope are given priority over the lenses of the eye... Natural science teaches us to attend to some experiences rather than to others and only to those when they have been cast into the proper form for scientific attention.

I think for an abstract idea of Empiricism, such as it being only a particular kind of performance, modern science is the perfect poster child. But for the actual philosophy, which has the task of formulating something other than absolute relativism, it hasn't gotten anywhere. It persists not as a tool which has accomplished anything but purely as a means of disproving everything.

The favorite technique of Empiricism is arguing that some particular argument of point of view is nonsense. But maybe what is nonsense is empiricism itself, so that anything, when rendered properly in empiricist terms, simply reflects these shortcomings back at the empiricist.

For what it's worth, the older term, "natural philosophy", became "science" in the 19th century (or maybe later in the 18th century, depending). Gradually the the older term (natural philosophy) disappeared and was replaced by the newer term "science" that developed its own methodology and techniques.

Is "science" still part of philosophy? Some say yes, some say no,

I read - I think in Walter Isaacson’s book The Innovators - that the term ‘scientist’ was devised sometime around 1838 in the salon associated with Sir Charles Babbage, credited, with Ava Lovelace, as the progenitor of the digital computer.

I think it is quite controversial to place science within empiricism. — Garth

It's either controversial or it's not. You can't have an opinion about what consensus is. Anyway, science is empirical, whether you think so or not.

it is quite controversial to place science within empiricism — Garth

If there were any connection, it would be the other way around.
Philosophical empiricism arose in response to the challenge presented by theoretical mathematical science to classical philosophy. Empirical science is not an outgrowth of philosophy, it has its own roots in observation of nature.
Philosophical empiricism is hardly reflective of empirical science, that being perhaps the central problem of philosophy of science.

it feasible, to try to find loose ends to join the science with philosophy. Science makes an effort to make sense of various phenomena.Is science a natural philosophy? — rohit29

No. First, the proof sought by scientific activities is not the philosophical principles aimed at in philosophy. While science deals with facts and discoveries, philosophy attempts to apply the narrative of existence and nature of being, among others, on these facts. Science is an instrument whose findings can be used by philosophers to formulate philosophical principles.

You said "Empirical natural philosophy" which I interpreted to mean "empiricism". And someone obviously cares what I think since you and another person quoted me :wink:

You can't have an opinion about what consensus is. — Kenosha Kid

I'll just leave this rather trollish quip here for you to reflect on. And remember what I said about how certain Antifa identifying people react to those who challenge their opinions... that is to say they act like Nazis. Maybe you should look in the mirror.

Philosophical empiricism arose in response to the challenge presented by theoretical mathematical science to classical philosophy. — magritte

Of course this is among the most studied topics and questions in philosophy. I read a book (Modernity and Plato) as part of a philosophy reading group which places the blame on the history of philosophy generally. The problems begin with Stoic interpretations of Plato, Aristotle, and Academic philosophy.

You said "Empirical natural philosophy" which I interpreted to mean "empiricism". And someone obviously cares what I think since you and another person quoted me :wink: — Garth

I didn't mean that no one cares what you think, merely that one cannot have a point of view about what a consensus is.

I was just being explicit: science is observation-based philosophy of nature, nature being the subject, empiricism being the epistemology.

when you get a Phd in science it stands for doctor of Philosophy.
If you use logic or reason then you are using philosophy. — Rxspence

Correct and easily overlooked explanation.