I think philosophy is more perspectivism than it is empiricism. Now we live in a bind with scientific experimentation to prove hypotheses. For some time there was little of this but rather a kind of free writing and free thought, not really taking the demonstrability of ideas to be very significant. Science is about finding the correct perspective, as best as they can, where as philosophy is for offering multiple perspectives. Science might sometimes have a multi-theory perspective, such as in cosmology or the understanding of the possible origins of life on earth. Each is so scientifically "correct" based on the proofs and falsifications of the given hypotheses. In philosophy some ideas are correct as they are logical, reasonable, and deductive/inductive. Each man can search the breadths of philosophy, science, and even religion, and if he does enough he will either be convicted to a certain view or tend towards open-mindedness. In this, it is a case of conservatism vs. pluralism; to which I wish not to digress.

Interesting point. I agree that philosophy is about providing as many perspectives to a problem as is possible or required.

Science sits in contrast to that in it doesn't allow for many simultaneous interpretations of a subject. In science ONE theory is chosen as the best and the rest are discarded as untrue or relegated as an older less accurate version.

I guess the problem is not with the method but with the territory. Definiteness and exactitude are possible in scientific quests but not so in the vague, poorly understood, subjects of philosophy.

I think philosophy is more like groping your way in a dark room or like the proverbial six blind men and the elephant story. We don't know so we hypothesize, in the process inventing systems that each inventor feels fits with their worldview.

No system, therefore, will be complete or true. Thus the back and forth in philosophical subjects.