I literally had a psychology graduate come up to me and adamantly declare "If we delve into even a relative depth of philosophy, science will break down!".

Anyone that denies that science in general and ESPECIALLY psychology doesn't depend on philosophy is seriously ignorant.

These people have been duped into thinking the experimental method reveals all that there is about the mind. However the very measurements we make regarding peoples reports assumes they have a mind. That's a philosophical position within of itself.

We have to assume that people's brain states are connected to their mental states OR that their mental states ARE their brain states OR that their mental states are epiphenomenal byproducts of those brain states. Either way, it is imbedded with philosophical assumptions.

How we go about our research depends on what theory of the mind (not to be confused with "theory of mind") that we choose. Do we choose to accept that the brain is a functional and computational entity or do we suppose that it is something else? Our assumptions govern our science

There is also the epistemic issue that no knows what is inside someone else's mind and so all we can do is draw probabilistic statements that if such some brain state correlates with some behavior/report they are connected and thus can form some theory of how the mind works.

Except there are multiple ways to understand the same behavioral outputs from a class of people. Also, minds often are referents to what a particular culture states how they "OUGHT" to be. There's a reason there are different schools of psychoanalysis and in different traditions.

People trained in western education systems are completely dismissive to the idea that any other school, culture, and mode of thought could comprehend a coherent concept of what mind *OUGHT* to be like. Indeed, psychology depends on these epistemic assumptions to function at all.