Nobody has any doubt that science has emerged as one of the most important methods by which humans can gain knowledge about the world and themselves in the recent centuries. Thus the philosophical view of taking whatever it is that sciences are saying about the world as the only thing that is prima facie true, and doing metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of life etc. based on that stance seems a perfectly legitimate enterprise. At least no less legitimate than other philosophical stances like materialism, idealism, theism, monism, dualism, nihilism etc. This approach, I will call philosophical scientism. Since science is always changing, scientism is also something that is redone as the consensus shifts, and there is no point where it will say, "this is it and there's nothing else." The only constant thing in it is that it takes whatever the scientific consensus is on a matter, as the truth and builds the philosophy out of it... and repeats this as consensus changes over time. It will also be very useful in enabling us to understand how philosophically complete or coherent the scientific understanding of the world at a given point is, and if one's own worldview (which may not be scientism) is consistent with scientific understanding, and if not, where the divergences lie.
What do you think?
What do you think?
There is not much else I can really say about the idea though. I just advise caution is all. It could work out great, or it could end terribly. But that is the risk we take with everything so, it is what it is.