How many "philosophers" are actually philosophers of science (i.e. they study philosophy, but not necessarily the actual branch of philosophy known as "science")

People often think that philosophy exists in the realm of ethics and morality, aesthetics, etc. But I'm starting to think that a lot of philosophers are really just "philosophers of science". What I mean by that is that they study the nature of reality through the lens of philosophy, which is actually the branch of science. However, people who believe this way argue that philosophy is able to get closer to the truth of reality than science can, because science is often bound by empirical evidence and they believe that philosophy is able to get closer to the truth.<br><br>This is probably best put forward by someone like Kant, who believed that philosophy could discover things independently from science, and that philosophy has a special status in the sense that it can get closer to the truth than science.<br><br>I'm not trying to necessarily argue that philosophy is science or vice-versa, but I'm arguing that a lot of philosophers are actually philosophers of science. The philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the nature of science. Philosophers of science often study what science tells us about reality, and whether we can draw conclusions from science about the nature of reality. Many people who call themselves philosophers are really just philosophers of science, meaning that they use science as evidence to make conclusions about reality.<br><br>A lot of these people probably deny that they are scientists or philosophy of science, but they're really just saying the same things as them.<br><br>&#x200B;<br><br>Edit: By philosophy of science, I mean that they're using science as evidence to make conclusions about reality. This isn't necessarily the philosophy of science branch of philosophy, which is the study of whether science can be considered evidence or not.