cofty, that which we now call science used to be called "natural philosophy"; the word "scientist" (though not the word "science") had not even been coined prior to the year 1834. Science itself has a philosophical basis (called "philosophy of science"), including when it comes to ideas of how a person is to conduct science. That, in turn, includes: making a hypothesis and testing it, determining what constitutes an accurate and good measurement, determining whether or not we can trust our physical senses (including sight) when doing an experiment, determining how to determine if our measuring equipment are reliable (and if so, to what extent it is reliable), and etc.
Likewise logic (including deductive and inductive logic) is a branch of philosophy, and it (and critical reasoning) are taught in some introductory college courses in philosophy.
But every conscious human who thinks in terms of language (such as in using words) practices philosophy. For example, the use of philosophy takes place when people attempt to determine the meaning of quantum mechanics. But yes much of philosophy is highly debatable.
slimboyfat I think it is highly questionable to use human logic to question if human logic is reliable. It is a type of 'catch-22'. I think the only way it can be is if we presume a certain axiom(s)/premise(s)/presumption(s)/assumption(s) or method(s) of logic is(are) reliable and use it (or them) as standard to question and test alleged axioms or methods of logic (in other words ones we are not yet sure are reliable), but even then we are still starting from an unproven base. It is like all of the axioms/assumptions of mathematics are an unproven starting point in doing mathematics. There isn't much (if anything) we can do about those situations. Perhaps the best we can accomplish from doing such is to determine if our ideas of logic and mathematics are good enough and reliable enough. That is the same situation which might be case if we came into existence from unguided evolution.