A colleague of mine is working on defining "control" in AVH. She argues that different psychologists use the concept of "control" in very different ways, which explains their seemingly contradictory findings. Maybe not phil of sci, but it seems to be a good example of philosophy guiding science.
Yes, the same word in different context can have different operating definition (like "species" - different in vertebrate zoology and in microbiology; or "gene" - different in population genetics and genomics). We know that without philosophy guiding us.
And our domain knowledge makes us see why insisting on unifying definition is a waste of time - the definition would have to be so abstract as to be useless for practical work. (I cannot say anythiing about how psychologists use "control", but I doubt that they are unaware of how they do it.)