can philosophy become more scientific without confusing logical certainty with empirical truth?
That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Michael Tomasello, for example, is someone who does a lot of philosophy referring to a lot of experimental results. That’s why I trust his ideas enough to give them the time of day and try to understand them – I know they’re closely anchored in careful dissections of reality.
At the same time, because reality has the property of being logical, then the right facts lend themselves to doing philosophy (probably depending on the subject area). In other words, empirical accuracy makes the ideas fit together with other known facts, since the ideas are supposed to be a model of reality, and reality is constructed a certain way that philosophy is supposed to uncover.
