No; defenders of the consensus held that the philosopher of science
was concerned with developing a "model" or account of an ideal perfected
science. They fully well realized that actual real sciences always
fell short, often severely, of this ideal picture of what a science should
be. But this fact merely indicates that real science is incomplete and
part of a human, historical process; thus it is heir to all the errors
of which humans are capable. Thus for the consensus the philosophy
of science was concerned with stipulating what an ideal science
to do to rationally justify its beliefs; when philosophers make claims
about what ought or should be the case (rather than what
is the case) they are said to be making "normative" claims.
Thus the empiricist consensus was a normative philosophy of science.