No need to answer if perceived as argumentative rather than seeking the point of

No need to answer if perceived as argumentative rather than seeking the point of view of someone I respect.
RE: Previous question. In the context of Kant and Hegel, who I chose as examples because of their remaining influence, or for all of twentieth century philosophy in general which other than linguistics hasn’t been terribly fruitful, and then given present knowledge of physics down to modeling the quantum background, genetics, cognitive science, computational linguistics, behavioral economics, economics, and law, why would you study philosophy where the categories are inconsistent and often fictionalisms, instead of those sciences other than the ease of the literary narrative and it’s more intuitionistic carrying capacity, and the relative difficulty of learning those scientific disciplines?
If that alone is a reason that’s fine. Especially if we wish to promote the moral loading of that study. Otherwise, why work with a system of categorization, measurement, and reasoning that is less consistent and correspondent than the sciences?
In other words I agree that the study of intellectual history teaches us how to avoid the many errors made by man in the past, but as for understanding the universe, world, polity, society, and personality of the current era, why would you not study that which explains it naturally, realistically, operationally, logically, and correspondingly?
In other words, mustn’t all science (formal, physical, behavioral, evolutionary) converge on minimum marginal differences in error?

Reply addressees: @TheAtlasSociety