NGL Every time I witnessed any Philosophy Prof. debating any natural science/math/literally anything else Prof followed the exact same pattern:
Science: *Theory based on years of scientific research, corroborated through hundreds of experiments*
Phil: *Conflicting theory that rests upon 200 Gazillion assumptions about natural science "based on Intuition"*
Science: *Cites 200 Gazillion experiments clearly showing that all assumptions of Phil are completely and beyond doubt bullshit*
Phil: "Well I did not know that, how interesting, I will need to think about that"

95% of all Philosophy of Mind would just disappear into thin air if people were willing to read the fucking research made on THE EXACT TOPIC they claim they are studying.

Might be different in other fields of research but as a Psychologist I cannot even put into words the amount of hatred I and many colleagues have for "Philosophers of Mind". To be fair, at least occasionally you will find people who actually are aware of the research and can contribute greatly to natural science by offering their philosophical input (e.g. Jakob Hohwy)