I think it's fair to say that what distinguishes scientific activity from other fields, like philosophy is the formalistic methodology. The logical positivists who took this to the extreme actually envisioned a 'unified science' as one of the central goals of doing science.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that much of philosophical discourse, disagreement, in particular, concerns disagreement about fundamental methodology. I don't think that's even something philosophers would disagree with. Theologians, continental philosophers, analytical philosophers, postmodernists and so forth all have vast disagreements about what the tools, or even the purpose of philosophy is.

Likewise, when theories of justice are concerned, religious scholars and bioethicists don't primarily disagree about the results or evidence of some process, they disagree about fundamental assumptions on how to make inquiries at all. That's usually not the issue (or a secondary issue) in science.