What philosophers can do is stand between evidence based knowledge and cultural/personal beliefs/intuitions expressed in everyday language. Philosophers can analyze the disconnects – just that alone is useful. Maybe. Worth a try.
The medical facts are in. Like all other animals, humans behave reactively, completely unconsciously and instantly – 140ms. All subjective experience, including feelings, consciousness, deciding, thinking, etc. are probably just epiphenomenal. Maybe not, but the experimental work needs to be done. However, since other animals don’t need any of what makes humans “exceptional” – they probably don’t matter much. Since all subjective experience is just self reports using local language – it looks like words don’t matter much either.
What would definitely be useful is to show how our mistaken beliefs are embedded in our language. For example, the notion of a stand alone, independent free thinking Me/I. Also language cultural differences in beliefs, language, etc.
Currently, it seems philosophers are hyper-focused on protecting turf – which is normal. They are spending all their time on looking backwards to old books and attacking new ideas from bench brain science. That appears to be the default of brains overall.
So, using only everyday language, philosophy can now look forward and integrate medical/biological facts with everyday language – or try.