I believe we are as justified in the study of the scientific as the metaphysical. And where science has, without doubt, banished all speculation by revealing the facts as are applied in our interactions, then we have no choice but to accept. But, along the channels where doubt may yet remain, even if on the fringes, it remains our duty to seek for the truth, into whichsoever dark crevice we choose. Therefore, until proof, no cause (in this case, theory) should be lost to any that are willing to venture forthwith.

Anyway, I have realized a tendency where philosophers are divided in terms of those who accept the metaphysical versus those who deny it by claiming science. However, instead of the substitution of 'unproven' metaphysical arguments and explanations in favour of other 'unproven' scientific arguments and explanations, which I find unnecessary because I see no significance in trading one untruth for another, I find it easier to just add it all to the 'not-yet-resolved' pile without recourse to any substitution. Also, I think I have discovered the proverbial 'middle path' through which all philosophical narratives may safely venture without bias as they did in the past and yonder ancient days.
Firstly, I should point out that there is but one great difference between the philosophy of old and what present-day philosophy should be. That is, in ancient times, philosophy was all-inclusive while presently it needs to be all-exclusive. The answer, I think, is to limit philosophy to pure logic. Thus, if philosophy limits itself to pure logic, it can denounce all fields, even science and metaphysics, and still maintain its pristine nature as an affiliate of all knowledge but not a component of any particular field of knowledge. This is because even though other fields of knowledge may be based on logic, to different degrees, they are not solely dependent upon it; while philosophy undoubtedly is.

The question now becomes 'what is logic?' and 'how does it determine philosophy?'
I will not give give a prose as to how I have arrived at the definition of logic since different schools of thought seem to have valid and varied definitions, the variation being mostly a matter of language than actual application. Therefore, I will begin by stating that, logic is not about the assertion of facts or truths. Its main purpose is realising the significance of those asserted facts/truths, primarily in our lives. For example, that we have five fingers in each hand is not a matter of logic. But, what it means to have those five fingers in each hand is what is determined by the laws of logic. Therefore, what can be logical or illogical is not whether something is a fact/truth or it isn't. Instead, it is what significance that fact/truth has. In this way, even hypothetical statements of fact can be considered in terms of logic.

I know, this leaves a wide area of speculation including the specific relationships between 'my proposed philosophy' and the various fields of knowledge, but feel free to express any approval, disapproval or query.