When you say philosophers, do you mean "all philosophers"?
"All philosophers" would pretty much mean "all humans". So, no, I am mainly talking about academic philosophers, those who are members of university philosophy departments.
When a philosopher or a scientist claims that science uses those forms of reasoning, they do so based on observation.
That would require that the philosophers of science sit in the scientists labs, take notes, and ask the scientists questions about their reasoning. As best I can tell, there isn't much of that observation being done.
There are some people who have tried sitting in the scientists labs. They are usually known as sociologists of science. An example of this is
the work of Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar. The sociologists of science come up with a rather different picture of science than the one that comes from academic philosophers.
I see observation as what connects a scientific theory to reality.
[sarcasm]
Observation is a system whereby propositions magically pop into one's head.
[/sarcasm]
If you have a reference to a good philosophical analysis of observation, I would appreciate that. I have not been able to find one. The closest that I have seen is
Quine: From Stimulus to Science. As I recall, he says that observation begins as surface irritations, and from those observation categoricals are derived by induction. That seems to fit my sarcastic note above.
You can't hypothesise anything about anything if you are a brain in a void and have never observed anything.
You would not come up with an Adam and Eve story, if you were a brain in a void and had not observed anything. That gives us no basis for assuming that the Adam and Eve story is other than an origins myth, nor for assuming that induction and abduction are other than origins myths.
Jesus was a liberal hippie