> Science is a type of applied philosophy

This is typical philosophical nonsense. The word "philosophy" is so vaguely defined that anything can be considered "a type of applied philosophy". So science may well be "a type of applied philosophy" but that's not what makes science special. What makes science special, the thing that distinguishes it from all other branches of human intellectual endeavor, is that (to quote Feynman) experiment is the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Not truth per se, but scientific truth. For example you can't prove scientifically that your partner loves you :)

You can't prove anything scientifically. The best you can do is come up with an explanation that is consistent with all the data.

How do you know that your wife loves you, and that she's not just pulling a long con?

? There are many things you can prove scientifically, e.g. which molar mass is higher comparing two elements.

Really? How do you prove that?

> experiment is the ultimate arbiter of truth

Can you help me design experiments to prove the following?

* Simpler theories, with equal explanatory and predictive power, are preferable

* I'm not dreaming and there's no evil demon deceiving me

* The next swan will be white because all prior swans I've observed are

* Technology acts as a context of justification for scientific propositions, and proves its efficacy

* Experiment is the ultimate arbiter of truth

> Can you help me design experiments to prove the following?

Sure.

> * Simpler theories, with equal explanatory and predictive power, are preferable

You don't need an experiment for this. A more complicated theory is undesirable, all else being equal, because it requires more effort to deal with. A simpler theory will let you avoid that wasted effort.

> * I'm not dreaming

Any experiment will do here. You can't perform experiments in dreams. That is one of the things that distinguishes dreams from reality.

> and there's no evil demon deceiving me

You can never prove that. You might be living in the Matrix, and the Matrix could be controlled by an evil demon. That possibility can never be completely eliminated. However, there is no evidence for it, and so neither the matrix nor evil demons are needed to explain observations, and so they can be discounted for that reason. In other words, the Matrix or evil-demon hypotheses have no predictive power.

> * The next swan will be white because all prior swans I've observed are

That's a false assertion so you can't design an experiment to prove it. Science does not rely on induction.

> * Technology acts as a context of justification for scientific propositions, and proves its efficacy

Do you have a better explanation for how technology comes to exist that is consistent with all the data?

> * Experiment is the ultimate arbiter of truth

Again, that is not a provable assertion. That is a heuristic that empirically produces better results than any other criterion that humans have come up with so far.

There is actually reason to believe that it can't be improved upon, just as there is reason to believe that an oracle for the halting problem can't be constructed in our universe. But you can't prove it.

The point is that naive (vulgar) empiricism is untenable because to perform and evaluate scientific practices you inevitably invoke premises that are rational or pragmatic, not empirical.

No, that's not true. If you want to dispute that, give me an example of a necessary premise (i.e. one that is "inevitably invoked") that you think cannot be justified by empiricism.