Are Philosophy and Substance Mutually Exclusive?

The question brings to my mind a reminiscence of early studies Dr. Oliver asked us to conduct with the hidden curriculum of philosophy in mind, which is that philosophy is not the subject to approach when science is too much.
Russell's definition of matter and mind with regards to substance is incredibly virtuous, and I respect his ability to admit the absence of mutual exclusivity between Philosophy and Science. As we know, prominent scientists such as Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson have rejected the fruits of Philosophy has being the result of the thinking man (cliched philosopher) attempting to admonish the studies of the answering man (cliched scientist) and the pinnacle Albert Einstein, himself, admitted that there are gaps between philosophy and science that neither critical thinking nor the scientific method can duly answer. It's interesting that so many individuals regard science as being stagnant, subject to conformity, and defined in its paramater. Alfred Wegener's proposals on the continental drift theory at the time was subjected to critical praise as well as harsh scrutiny from his colleagues of prominent stature. So then, this brings to us the false dichotomy of substance vs. mind.
I can only spout a single question to hopefully lead some on a thread that would eventually arrive at the mental state of which I am currently. If all existing things of the past and the future was to cease existing except an airplane, would the airplane still exist?
I know. Long stretch of a question. So, to summarize, whether it is science or philosophy that must be utilized to provide a defined answer to a question, I am impartial except to what will eventually be correct.