As an empiricist, yes! Put simply, philosophy is always about asking questions, observing the response, then coming up with general theories to explain the pattern of agreement/disagreement.

Even metaphysics is fundamentally about this process. This does of course imply that metaphysics does not necessarily lead to the answers the metaphysician wants. All a metaphysician learns is about what a brain (probably their own) thinks is correct, and not necessarily what is correct.

That said, this does not mean I think philosophy is useless. Indeed, what the brain thinks is often vital information. Ethics is a prime example. We are happier when we act ethically. Ethics is simply what we feel/believe is right or wrong, which of course is a product of the internals of the brain. Hence, it is important to understand ethics, and understanding ethics is about understanding what is going on in our heads. The philosophy of ethics is about presenting a brain with different situations, observing its ethical evaluations, and thereupon formulating theories about how it is generating that evaluation. Metaphysics does have examples of this too. Causation, for example (which of course is hugely relevant to ethics). Although I personally have never been able to settle on a satisfactory view of causation, it nevertheless seems to me that our perception of causation is about how our brains analyse sensory input, thus falling within the definition above. You consider a situation involving events A and B, observe whether you think A caused B, which supports or disconfirms your current theory etc. Another fairly straightforward example would be identity; you consider whether A is B etc.