As a psychologist, my father has always deplored the fact that psychology, in the last 100 years, has focused on experimental and pseudo-scientific techniques as opposed to allowing for the usefulness of non-scientific ideas, practices, etc. A lot of psychology was discarded because it couldn't be measured, and what was left at the end of that process was less than what psychology was before.
In that context, I'd tend to side with the non-x-phi's in this. Scientific analysis is only one way to understand the world, and it is not the best in every situation. You can't grow a tree with a hammer and nails.
Yes, but perhaps philosophy is too far to the non-experimental side. Experimental and theoretical philosophy can coexist. But philosophers should be careful to not let experimental philosophy take over; they should learn from the experience of psychology.
It has a long and distinguished list of contributors, including Stephen Stich and Jonathan Weinberg, who carried out some of the earliest work in this nascent field.
In that context, I'd tend to side with the non-x-phi's in this. Scientific analysis is only one way to understand the world, and it is not the best in every situation. You can't grow a tree with a hammer and nails.