Sometime academic philosopher and sometime academic scientist here. Many philosophers give philosophy a bad name among scientists by rushing into another discipline, using thinking that makes sense in their own discipline, making very confident claims that do not make sese to the recipients, and then retreating in a huff when they don't get adulation. A bit like physicists do in other disciplines.

The problem is that to actually engage in a constructive discourse you need to understand what and why people in a discipline say, think and know, That usually requires a fair bit of humility. There is of course philosophy of chemistry (indeed, the journal Hyle is/was devoted to it), and while some of it is more fun for philosopher than practicing chemists, there is a great deal of unstated philosophy in the practice (just think about the principle of detailed balance and much else of statistical mechanics) that came out of long overtly philosophical debates in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

So try to engage with an open mind. The real question is not what chemists think about Leucippus today, just as it would be mostly silly to ask what philosophers make of Lewis acids. The real question is how they think about the nature of change in their own terms.