I once had a professor tell me "intellectual history is a waste of time". I think both statements are myopic.

Yes

Either he meant it or was just goofing around, he was one of a kind character. Surprisingly to me anyway, I don't think he gets all the credit he truly deserves.

I don’t see how that attitude could be helpful. I wonder about the context in which it was said.

Ummm, ornithology gets species, such as condors, declared endangered, which is a Huge benefit to the condors....

I can say that Scientists should use Philosophy of science to increase the quality of works.
poor statistics, questionable methods, wrong reporting. No report of failures etc. All this goes against the method.
BUT these works are done and published anyway. And we see things like reproducibility crisis, misuse of p-value, articles based on too few samples, wrong citation (reinterpreting the interpretation of a citation of an article), etc.
The answer is it should be used but it is not. It should be the base to perform science, but most of times it is like brushing teeth, there is an efficient and correct way. But in general people do what they are told to do and never think about it.

In the day to day working life of scientists perhaps. But to the ordinary person in the street, the basic philosophy of science, without getting too deep into the detail, is priceless! Because it is nearly the same thing as learning to think, especially understanding the idea that it is good to recognize you can be in error, and being able to change is wisdom.