I think you're exaggerating the inability of philosophers to come to terms with scientific discovery, though I would agree we know so little about QM trying to say any philosophical argument is definitive gospel would be a mistake.
I try, sometimes poorly, to respect the value of philosophers and their modern development in the light of scientific understanding. But understanding doesn't always correlate to total literacy - in the perspective of the utterly nonintuitive mathematics of QM, the only way towards understanding is a hideous slog of slogs towards the literacy (only on this board could I make this comparison in saying that QM is the gnosis to a Newtonian and intuitive anagnosis).
And that's not to speak poorly on any philosophy. Some things are simply
alien, through and through.
Couldn't you say the same about neuroscience?
I think neuroscience is the gate and gatekeeper and key between objective and subjective realities. You poke the brain and get subjective experiences, you have subjective experiences and get objective signals. And that means that any well-considered subjective experience can enlighten us, should we analyze it carefully enough.
QM might exist almost entirely outside of that. The objective reality of the very small is so beyond our intuition and perspective that it is only by the tenuously logical proofs of a bizarre mathematics that we come to any remote understanding of it.