This paper raises issues about how philosophy ought to proceed. In the background are two competing approaches to the evidential grounding of philosophical insight. According to a widespread view, philosophical knowledge rests on a set of intuitions. According to another, philosophy has no special evidential grounding. This paper will resist the attractions of the first picture, and argue against the separateness of philosophy that it lends support. I shall try to make plausible that such a picture can be harmful both for philosophy and for empirical science. We should replace it with a mild form of unity of science.