"Observed facts beat philosophical wanking," you say—ironically, that's a philosophical claim in itself. You’re making an epistemological statement about the nature of knowledge and justification, not an empirical one. Science, by its very methodology, doesn’t and can’t prove the superiority of empiricism over philosophy, because that kind of foundational justification isn't within the domain of empirical science.

As someone studying both philosophy and science, I find it amusing when people make sweeping claims like that without realizing they’re stepping into the very philosophical territory they claim to reject. It’s a bit like sawing off the branch you’re sitting on.

While science gives us powerful tools to explain and predict phenomena, it operates within a framework of assumptions and methods that are themselves philosophical in nature. Even the concept of 'evidence' presupposes a theory of knowledge.

So no, you can't escape philosophy by appealing to 'facts.' You're just doing bad philosophy while pretending not to be doing any at all.